1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3982 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 22408 OF 2009 IN S.C.SUIT NO. 78 OF 2007 M/s.Midtown Developers & Contractors ...Applicant vs M/s. Lake View Developers. ...Respondent Mr. Satish Shetye i/b Rajiv K. Gupta for the applicant. Mr. S.D. Mogre for the respondent. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16 TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. The applicant is a registered partnership firm dealing in business of developing the open sites and construction contracts. The applicant had filed a suit before the City Civil Court which came to be dismissed. According to the applicant, the business of the applicant firm was being looked after by the Managing Partner 2 viz. Vilas Pawar. He lost his son on 27th September, 2008 and, therefore, suffered mental agony. He was unable to attend the matter, likewise other matters and his business. He was required to go to his native place after the demise of his son. It is alleged that the Managing Partner was required to bring his son to Mumbai for treatment after July, 2008 and, therefore, he was mentally in a state of trauma due to loss of his young son. He contacted his advocate in June, 2007 and made enquiry about the progress of the suit. The advocate was, however, unable to give him information and asked him to visit the office on the next day. He, however, could not go to the office of the advocate on the next day and ultimately visited the office of the advocate on 3rd July, 2009, when he came to know about the dismissal of the suit on 13th February, 2009 vide the impugned judgment. He, therefore, sought certified copies which were handed over to the advocate on 7th July, 2009 and thereafter the First Appeal was filed along with the present application. 2. The application is resisted by the respondent. It is contended by the respondent that the explanation given by the applicant is totally incorrect and unacceptable. The respondent has filed certain copies of documents in order to show that the applicant was present on 29th September, 2008 in the office of the Deputy Director of Land Records. The contention of the respondent was that adjournment application was submitted by the applicant before the Deputy Director under his signature 3 and, therefore, his presence could be inferred. It is also contended that the applicant was attending the other proceedings and used to contact his advocate on various dates and, therefore, there is no merit in the contention that till 3rd July, 2009, he could not get information about the dismissal of the suit. For such reasons, the respondent submits that the application is devoid of merits and as such is liable to be dismissed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties in extenso. 4. The applicant has filed copy of the death certificate issued by the Thane Municipal Corporation which shows that the son of the applicant Vilas Pawar died on 27th September, 2008. That death of a young son could have caused mental agony to the applicant-Vilas Pawar as a father, cannot be doubted. The reason shown by the applicant that due to loss of his young son he was unable to attend the business matters for quite some period is, therefore, acceptable. It appears that the respondent relied upon copy of the Roznama dated 29th September, 2008, in the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Land Records. It was contended that the Roznama is signed by the applicant himself. However, prima facie, such contention does not find support in view of the fact that the Marathi signature of the applicant Vilas is shown in the Roznama dated 29th September, 2008 and that the verified signature of the applicant Vilas is 4 placed on record. Another contention put forth by the respondent is that the applicant Vilas submitted his application before the Deputy Director on 29th September 2008 under his signature and, therefore, his presence could be gathered and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not attending the work or the court. In this context, the applicant has filed affidavit of the concerned advocate Mr. Shinde. Mr. Shinde, Advocate, reveals that he had obtained signature of the applicant Vilas for submission of the application and, in fact, applicant Vilas Pawar was not present in the office of the Deputy Director, Land Records on 29th September,, 2008, in person. There is no substantial reason to dislodge the version of the learned advocate Mr. Shinde. What appears to me is that the dispute is between the two developers and, therefore, there is a serious contest put forth in regard to the explanation given by the applicant. 5. It is well settled that delay condonation application has to be considered by taking a liberal approach. A party is not likely to gain anything by intentionally committing the delay. The delay itself is not purposefully committed when it is known to a litigant that his legal rights are likely to be trampled as a result of such delay. The explanation is required to be looked into by adopting a pragmatic approach. In the present case, it is reasonable to expect that the middle-aged father may not have reconciled with the regular affairs of the life within a short span 5 of time after the death of his young son. The adjournment application dated 29th September, 2008 is signed in Marathi whereas the body writing is in English and the advocate has explained the circumstances in his affidavit. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the explanation tendered by the applicant, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient cause shown by the applicant and as such the delay will have to be condoned. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned. (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.)