FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL ALPPLICATION NO.1001 OF 2003 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO.36071 OF 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. -------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, for the Applicants Mr. Ashok Tajane, for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 1C. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . By the above Civil Application the Applicants pray for condonation of delay of two years and 281 days in filing the above Second Appeal. The reasons for the delay are mentioned in paras. 2,3 and 4 of the Civil Application. The sum and substance of the reasons is that the applicants were under the impression that since the papers were sent by their local Advocate in Solapur to their Advocate in Mumbai the Appeal was already filed and only when the execution proceedings started sometime in the year 2002 they became aware of the fact that the papers had in fact not reached their Advocate in Mumbai and the applicants thereafter took steps to file the above mentioned Second Appeal which has resulted in delay of 2 years and 281 days in filing the Second Appeal. 2. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 an affidavit in reply has been filed opposing the above Civil Application. It is contended by the said respondents that no material has been placed on record by the applicants in support of their case mentioned in paras.2 to 4 of the Civil Application. It is further contended in the said affidavit that the decree in question has already been executed and that the respondents have been put in possession of their respective shares on 15th October, 2003 and Kabjepavati has accordingly been executed. It is the case of the respondents that the delay has not been properly explained by the applicants. 3. Having considered the rival contentions, in my view considering the reasons cited by the applicants in the Civil Application a case for condonation of delay is made out. It is well settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court that in matters of condonation of delay a highly technical and pedantic approach should be avoided and an approach which furthers the cause of substantial justice should be followed. 4. In so far as the contention of the respondents that the decree has been executed and nothing, therefore, survives for consideration in the Second Appeal, the said argument, in my view, the said submission could be considered at the time of hearing of the Second Appeal for admission, by leaving it open for the respondents to raise the said point. Hence Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (c). . Shri Tajane fairly concedes that since it is a suit for partition amongst the family members costs may not be imposed. 5. Place the Second Appeal for admission in the week commencing from 13th October, 2008. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (R.M. SAVANT, J.)