1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.754/2007. WITH STAMP NUMBER (APPLN) NO.1994 OF 2007. Mr. Govind Kusta Gaonkar, .. Petitioner Versus. Shri Rudresh S. Prabhu and 31 Ors. .. respondents Mr. S. N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar,Advocate for the respondent No.1 & 32 . Coram :- R. C. CHAVAN, J Date : - 12nd August, 2008. P.C. : 1. By these applications, the applicant legal representative of Original appellant No.1 seeks condonation of delay in applying for setting aside abatement and bringing legal representatives of deceased appellant on record. The appellant Kusta Bhisso Gaonkar died on 24.4.2005. According to the applicant, he was not aware of the pendency or status of the appeal and only when he met his Advocate on 24.7.2007, was the need to apply for bringing L.Rs. on record dawned upon him. Application was filed on 25.7.2007 for condonation of delay of 2 years and 3 months, having abatement set aside and bringing L.Rs. 2 on record. 2. Though all the respondents have been served, the respondent Nos.1 and 32 have filed reply alleging that the applicant has not shown any sufficient cause justifying the delay. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos. 20 and 26 had expired and application for bringing L.Rs. on record was made. It was also pointed out that L.Rs. at No.3E had filed the appeal as holder of power of attorney of deceased. In view of this, it is contended by the respondents that the applicant was not only aware of the requirement to bring L.Rs. on record, but was also aware of pendency of appeal as also death of deceased appellant. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for condoning the delay. 3. I have heard both the learned Counsel for the applicant and respondent Nos. 1 & 32. Learned Counsel for the applicant relied on judgment of Apex Court in Ramnath Sao Versus Gobardhan Sao, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 195, where, the Supreme Court had taken a review of several judgments relating to condonation of delay. The Court had observed that once an appeal is pending in High Court, applicants cannot be expected to keep constant watch on proceedings and also that the limitation prescribed should not result in punishing the party by depriving of litigating his cause, unless it is shown that a party 3 had benefitted by the delay. In view of this though the contentions raised by the respondent Nos. 1 & 32 do have a force, since the appellants in this case have not been benefited by their negligent delay in bringing L.Rs. of deceased on record and since the matter pertains to interest in immovable property, delay is condoned. Abatement is set aside. L.Rs. are permitted to be brought on record subject, however, to costs of Rs.1,000/- since the respondent has been needlessly made to contest this application because of the negligence on the part of the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has paid costs to the respondent Nos.1 & 32. Necessary correction in the cause title may be carried out within 7 days. R. C. CHAVAN, J SMA