1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C. A. S. NO. 465 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 19099 OF 2008 Kaikadu Dharma Chapale & Ors. Vs. Dagubai Maharu Gedam ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. H. M. Potbhare Adv for appellant. Mr. Amol Mardikar Adv for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 22 nd APRIL , 2010. Heard. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. It is stated that there is a delay of 252 days in filing appeal and the appellant seeks to condone the same. Appeal came to be decided on 03.12.2007. It is stated in the application that appellants came to know the fact of appeal having been decided in the month of October 2008 when they received the notice 2 of execution. It is further stated that they contacted their lawyer and applied for certified copy which was delivered on 07.11.2008 and the appeal came to be filed on 03.12.2008. It is contended that it was appellant no.1 who was appearing and taking care of the appeal. As he fell ill and was suffering from jaundice he could not contact the lawyer and file appeal. Respondent opposed the application and contended that there was no sufficient cause made out by the appellant for condonation of delay. It is denied that only appellant no.1 was knowing about the litigation and that the sons of the appellant no.1 were not knowing about the proceedings and were not taking care of the proceedings. Further it is contended that there is no explanation with regard to the delay for obtaining the certified copy. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. Contention of the appellants that they were not aware of the decision of the appeal in the District Court itself does not appear 3 to be correct because the respondents were being represented by the lawyer in the District Court. It is not even stated in the application that the lawyer had failed to inform the appellants with regard to the decision of the appeal. Further if the application is seen it is no where mentioned that it was appellant no.1 alone who was taking the care of the proceedings. There are as many as five male appellants who are more than 40 years of age. It is therefore still more difficult to accept that neither of them could take care of the proceedings and instruct the lawyer and contact the lawyer with regard to the filing of the appeal. When there are male members in the family it was the duty of atleast one of them to see that the appeal is filed within limitation and to find out from the lawyer as to what needed to be done. Neither of the appellant has cared to take care of the appeal pending before the District Court nor they have taken care to file appeal within time even after the knowledge. There is no certificate of Medical Officer to show that appellant was suffering from 4 jaundice or any kind of ailment. Law is well settled that any length of delay can be condoned by the Court provided there is sufficient and good cause. In the instant case there is no sufficient and good cause shown by the appellants. Application for condonation of delay therefore stands dismissed. JUDGE svk