( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1793 OF 2010 Sarikabai w/o Madhukar Suryawanshi and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS Vithal s/o Tulshiram More & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.B. Dhage, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.S. Kadam, advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 7. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 22nd June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 2nd January, 2010, whereby their application for condonation of delay of six (6) months and 22 days in filing restoration application came to be dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. I have perused the impugned order. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the facts giving rise to the appeal (R.C.A. No. 4/2006). Suffice it to say that the petitioners had filed the said appeal after certain delay but it was entertained by the first Appellate Court. The ( 2 ) petitioners would submit that they had no knowledge of the fact that the record and proceedings of the appeal had been despatched to the paper-book section. Their advocate did not inform them that paper-book charges were to be deposited. The appeal was dismissed in default as paper-book charges were not deposited by the petitioners. The order dated 09-09-2008 of dismissal of the appeal was, according to the petitioners, not communicated to them by their advocate. So, they could not file application for restoration of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, they sought condonation of the delay caused in filing of such application. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is manifest that the appeal was not scheduled for effective hearing. It is of common knowledge that after filing of the appeal, a litigant is not required to personally attend the appellate Court. The advocate is required to attend the matter and take appropriate steps for the purpose of effective hearing of the appeal. In the present case, there is no material on record to show that the petitioners were served with any notice to deposit the paper-book charges. The petitioners are rustic women. They are residing in small villages of Loha taluka whereas the appeal was filed in the ( 3 ) District Court at Kandhar. The learned District Judge seems to have taken dogmatic view of the matter while dismissing the application for condonation of the delay. It is well settled that liberal approach is required to be taken in such matters. No litigant is likely to gain anything by causing delay. On the other hand, such a litigant is likely to run a risk of his failure on technical ground of committing delay. It is true, no doubt, that the parameters enumerated in section 5 of the Limitation Act are not diluted due to mere fact of the petitioners being illiterate women or being inhabitants of small villages situated at a considerable distance from the premises of the District Court. Still, however, the fact that they were not personally required to attend the appeal at the stage of preparation of the paper-book, was required to be duly considered. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is unsustainable. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp1793-10