( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 29 OF 2009 Eknath s/o. Valabh Beldar .. Appellant Versus Ramdas s/o. Valabh Beldar .. Respondent dead - through L.Rs. Shri D.A. Mane h/f. Shri Milind Patil, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1A to 1C. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 08.09.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri D.A. Mane h/f. Adv. Shri Milind Patil for the appellant and Adv. Shri S.S. Kazi for respondent Nos. 1A to 1C. This appeal is filed against refusal to condone delay, set aside abatement and allow bringing of legal representatives of respondent in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2005, by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Shahada, by his orders dated 25.11.2008. 2. Present appellant was also appellant in Regular Civil Appeal No.13 of 2005 and Ramdas Valabh Beldar, (the ( 2 ) predecessor in title of present respondents) was the respondent. Admittedly, Ramdas expired on 14.07.2006 and thereafter his legal representatives ought to have been brought on record within 90 days. But only on 21.09.2007 applications were filed for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and bringing legal representatives on record. Those are applications which are marked Exhs. 21 and 23 respectively. It is stated in the applications that after filing of the appeal in the District Court, the decree passed was stayed and thereafter the matter was pending in the District Court for preparation of paper book. The appellant had to engage advocate and look after other litigations at different places. Since the appeal in the District Court was pending for preparation of paper book, it was not necessary for the appellant or the respondent to attend the District Court. In these circumstances not having experience of Court proceedings, the applications were not filed in time. However, the rights in respect of immovable properties are involved and if appeal is not decided on merit, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss. Hence, the applications be allowed. It is further stated that there was not intentional omission, but only because of ignorance, and as there was no ( 3 ) meeting with the advocate, there was delay. 3. The learned advocate for the respondent vehemently opposed the appeal. He relied upon case of Kamalbai w/o. Narasaiyya Shrimal and anr. V/s. Ganpat s/o. Vithalrao Gavare, 2007 (1) Mh.L.j.807 and Victor Albuquerque V/s. Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., 1998 (2) Mh.L.J.437. The learned advocate for the respondent argued that in similar facts the Single Bench took view that the delay is not properly explained and therefore the present appeal may also be dismissed. 4. In the para 7 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent, it is mentioned that dozens of litigations filed by or against the appellant are pending. It is also stated in para 2 that the appellant being brother of deceased Ramdas had attended funeral and he was knowing about death. But that is not disputed in the application filed in the Trial Court. It is stated that the appeal pending in the District Court was for preparation of paper book. Therefore, it was not necessary for the parties to attend the Court. The law in respect of condonation of delay in such circumstances is ( 4 ) now well settled. The Supreme Court has taken view that where appeal is filed, parties are not expected to attend Appellate Court on every date once they engage advocates, but generally it is for the advocate to look after the litigation. The law on the subject is also stated in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Ananatnag and Anr. V/s Mst. Katiji and Ors. - AIR 1987 S.C.1353. It may be noted that this is not application for condonation of delay wherein appeal/revision or other new proceeding was to be filed or initiated. But, it was for bringing legal representatives of respondent in the pending appeal. The Supreme Court has again and again stated that Courts should be liberal in such matter and discretion be exercised to advance substantial justice. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. In the result, the Appeal From Order is allowed. The order passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1, Shahada on application Exhs. 21 and 23, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2005, passed on 25.11.2008, are hereby set aside. If the appeal is disposed of as abated, the District Court is directed to restore it to the file. Both the applications ( 5 ) Exhs. 21 and 23 stand allowed. The Court shall allow present appellant to bring legal representatives on record and thereafter proceed with the appeal according to law. 6. At this stage both the advocates state that they would appear on any particular date in the District Court and the District Court may be directed to expedite hearing of the matter. The appellant and respondent of this appeal are directed to appear on 14.10.2009 in the Court of District Judge, Shahada, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2005. Thereafter, said Court shall allow amendment to be carried out in the appeal memo; bring legal representatives on record and then shall proceed to decide the appeal as early as possible. Inform the Trial Court accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/ao29.09