1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR. APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 58 OF 2003 Yashwant Gotuji Lande. APPELLANT. VERSUS Manohar Parvat Bunde. RESPONDENT. Smt. Pallavi Mahashabde, Counsel for the appellant. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE J. Date: 18th JANUARY 2006. ORDER: This appeal is filed against the order of the learned District Judge Akola, refusing to condone the delay in applying for setting aside the order dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant. 2 The appellant suffered a decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 71 of 1985. 2. He preferred appeal on 05.12.1992. That appeal was dismissed because Paper Book charges were not paid by the appellant. This dismissal took place on 07.01.1993. 3. On 14.11.1998 in an execution proceedings appellant came to know of the dismissal of the appeal in execution proceedings which were levied by the respondent. 4. The cause of the appellant for condoning the delay was that he had paid the amount to his Advocate and he had paid about Rs. 200/- to 300/- to his Advocate for fees and expenses and he expected that his Advocate would do the needful. He stated that he was not informed by the Advocate about the Paper Book charges. It is only after the application for execution was moved that he came to know that his appeal stood dismissed for want of payment of paper book charges. It appears from the order that the learned District Judge has not disbelieved the appellant that he had enaged an Advocate and paid him his fees. It is only because the appellant did not mentioned the name of the Advocate that the 3 learned District Judge has found that there is no sufficient cause, apart from the prejudice that might be caused to the opponent. There appears to be no doubt that the appellant had in fact communicated the Advocate. 5. In view of the settled position of law vide Rafiq And Another Vs. Munshilal And Another (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 788, I am of the view that the interest of justice required the Court to set aside the order. I am, therefore, of view that the learned District Judge ought to have condoned the delay. More over, the name of the Advocate could have easily be ascertained from the record of the case itself. In these circumstances I am of the view that this appeal should be allowed and is hereby allowed. The delay in applying for restoration is hereby condoned. The District Judge Akola is directed to proceed with the appeal. JUDGE svk