1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4737 OF 2009 Balam Gafur Patel & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Bapu Balu Vayadande & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.M.Mulla for the petitioners None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 13, 2010 P.C.: 1 On 21 st July 2009, notice for final disposal was issued by this Court. The 2 nd and 4 th respondents are already dead. Office noting shows that the notice has been duly served to the respondent nos.1,3,6,9 and 10. Petition already stands dismissed as against the respondent nos.5,7,8, 11 to 13. 2 The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. The suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 29 th October 2005. An appeal along with an application for condonation of delay was presented by the petitioners before the District Court on 3 rd January 2006. By the impugned order, the application for condonation of delay has been rejected. The learned District Judge observed that the delay was of 53 days and there was no explanation for the said delay. The learned Judge observed that there is a correction carried out in the date mentioned on the medical certificate produced by the petitioners. 2 3 After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the averments made in the application, I find that a sufficient cause for condonation of delay was made out. As stated earlier, impugned Judgment and decree was passed on 29 th October 2005. The application for obtaining certified copy of the Judgment and Decree was filed on 25 th November 2005. The copies were received by the petitioners on 5 th December 2005. An appeal along with application for condonation of delay was presented on 3 rd January 2006. In the application, it is stated that due to sickness, appeal could not be preferred earlier. Considering the averments made in the application and considering the extent of delay, the District Court ought to have adopted a liberal and justice oriented approach and condoned the delay. Therefore, impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. 4 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order is quashed and set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Application bearing no.2 of 2006 is hereby allowed. ii)It is made clear that as the present petition stands dismissed as against the respondent nos.5,7,8 and 11 to 13 and as the respondent nos.2 and 4 are already dead, the application for condonation of delay survives only as against the respondent nos. 1,3,6,9 and 10 and the delay stands condoned only as far as said respondents are concerned. iii)Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. JUDGE 3