1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6022 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 11.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The present Respondents had filed a suit for partition and separate possession which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present Respondent/original plaintiff preferred appeal. There was a delay of three years and 11 months in filing the appeal. As such the Respondent also moved an application for condonation of delay, which came to be allowed. Aggrieved thereby, one defendant has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, no reasons were given for non-filing of the appeal within the stipulated period. The only reason put forth was 2 that after the judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff was prosecuting before the Revenue Authorities on the legal advise and after the judgment was delivered by the Commissioner, thereafter, the appeal was filed. The learned counsel contends that the same can not be said to be a sufficient cause. The learned counsel further contends that the expression 'sufficient cause' can not be interpreted so liberally that it would lose its significance. According to the learned counsel, the Court below has dealt with the matter in a very casual manner. The rights are accrued to the petitioner after the judgment has been delivered by the trial Court and no appeal being filed for almost four (4) years. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment and the application filed for condonation of delay. The petitioner has stated that after the judgment was delivered by the trial Court, on the legal advise he had moved the revenue authorities. After the judgment was passed by the Commissioner immediately, the appeal was filed. The lower 3 appellate Court has observed that the proceedings before the revenue authorities could have been taken up on the basis of legal advise. The original plaintiff is age old person and the pensioner. The Court has observed that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was not prosecuting the remedy bonafide before the Revenue Authorities. The rights of the parties in an immovable property are involved. It is also a settled position of law that when technical considerations and cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should be sub-served. 5. The District Court has exercised the discretion. The view taken is a plausible view. There is no error of jurisdiction. 6. In light of that, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.11.08.2011. asp/office/wp6019.11 4