1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.39 of 2011 (Dr. Chandrashekhar s/o Vinayakrao Damdoo v. Narayanrao Ramchandra Ahirrao) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.V. Bhutada, Advocate for Applicant. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 30 th March, 2011 1. This civil revision application challenges the order dated 9-12-2010 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Nagpur, condoning the delay of 29 days caused in preferring an appeal challenging the dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.39 of 2006 by the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 21-4-2009. 2. The ground putforth for seeking condonation of delay was two-fold, viz. first, that the respondent/plaintiff was suffering from viral fever and was unable to contact the counsel, and secondly, he was facing some financial difficulties and hence the appeal could not be filed. The said reasons were opposed by the 2 applicant/defendant on the ground that he is a tenant in the suit premises of the respondent/plaintiff. According to him, the respondent/plaintiff is a businessman and runs a shop. Further, according to him, he is paying the rent regularly to the respondent/plaintiff and there is no question of having financial difficulties being faced by the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant/defendant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kamlabai w/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and another v. Ganpat s/o Vithalrao Gavare, reported in 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 807, in support of his contention that the application should be dismissed. It was a case arising out of the order passed by the lower Court rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Such rejection was not interfered with by the Court. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. 4. The Trial Court has exercised the discretion by condoning the delay taking into consideration the ground putforth. I do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Appellate Court. 3 5. The civil revision application is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl