1 sa 401.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2010 Kisan S/o Narayan Jadhav .. Appellant Versus Kalawati @ Dropadabai Narayan Jadhav and others .. Respondents Shri V. S. Tanwade, Advocate for the Appellant. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 21.04.2005. The present appellant aggrieved thereby filed an appeal before the District Court. There was delay of about 3 years and 5 months in filing the appeal. As such, the appellant also filed an application for condonation of delay. The Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge - 1, Osmanabad vide its judgment and order dated 17.06.2009 rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby the appellant 2 sa 401.10 has filed the present second appeal. 2. Shri Tanwade, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the expression sufficient cause has to be liberally construed. Whenever technical considerations and cause for substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause for substantial justice should prevail. The learned counsel contended that the appellant's son was suffering from dreaded disease, he was diagnosed as H.I.V. positive. Subsequently he died on 16.02.2007 because of these problems he could not keep in touch with his advocate. He got the knowledge after the talathi informed about the execution petition and thereafter the appeal was filed. According to the learned counsel the rights of the parties in an immovable property are involved and opportunity deserves to be given to the appellant to contest the matter on merits. An appeal is a substantive right of the appellant. The same may not be negated on technical grounds. The learned counsel further contends that the same can be compensated in terms of cost. Shri Tanwade, the learned counsel submits that hyper technical approach has been taken by the lower Appellate Court. He further assures this Court that if the appeal is registered, the appellant would not take any further 3 sa 401.10 adjournment in the matter. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment and application for condonation of delay. No doubt, the expression sufficient cause has to be liberally construed, but it could not be construed in such a manner that the said expression itself becomes redundant. The perusal of the application shows that the son of the appellant died on 16.02.2007, still the appeal was not filed up to 22nd October, 2008. No explanation is given for non filing of the appeal for such a long time. Even the application does not speak about the particulars as to the date or month when he got the knowledge from the said talathi. No dates are mentioned about the said fact. The Court has observed that the plaintiff at the relevant time was aged more than 70 years and she is not getting fruits of the decree. The delay would certainly benefit the appellant. 4. I do see not see any error committed by the Court below while rejecting the application for condonation of delay, as the application is devoid of any particulars regarding the dates and more particularly the date of the knowledge of the judgment and decree and the steps taken thereafter. The present second 4 sa 401.10 appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/April 11