1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2005 Machindra Asaram Shejul ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Sunita w/o Devidas Pholane ...Respondents ..... None for the petitioner Mr. Kaushabh K. Naik h/f Mr. V.D. Sonwane, advocate for respondent. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 28TH OCTOBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the respondent. Though the matter is taken up for final hearing, none appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent has argued the matter for about 15 minutes, even then the counsel for the petitioner is not present. 2 This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 1.9.2005 passed by the District Judge at Aurangabad on an application for condonation of delay in MARJI No. 235 of 2005. The petitioner herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 241 of 2000 before the 2 Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sillod praying a relief for cancellation of sale deed. The said suit was decreed on 18.8.2004, whereby the sale deed came to be cancelled. 3 Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2004 passed by the learned trial Court in R.C.S. No. 241 of 2000, the respondent herein filed appeal before the appellate Court alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner herein filed reply to the said application. After appreciating the rival contentions, the appellate Court, by order dated 1.9.2005, has allowed the application filed by the respondent herein for condonation of delay subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Hence, this Civil Revision Application. 4 From perusal of the grounds taken in the Civil Revision Application, none of the grounds appeal to this court to interfere in the impugned order. In ground No.4, the petitioner herein has stated that being aggrieved by the decision of the Tahsildar, an appeal was filed by the respondent herein before the Collector bearing No. 116 and thereafter after dismissal of her appeal, she further filed revision before the Commissioner. According to the petitioner, the proceeding before the Revenue authorities also relate to the subject matter of the suit, therefore, the respondent was well aware about the judgment and decree in the civil suit. 3 5 In the application for condonation of delay, the respondent herein in para 2 has stated that the applicant is an illiterate lady and due to continuous litigation int he revenue court and the criminal cases lodged by the respondent falsely and the applicant is very poor lady and due to drought, the applicant could not collect the money. Furthermore the applicant could not get knowledge of the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court. However, when she approached to the advocate to obtain copy on 5.7.2005, she got the knowledge. Further statement is made that the delay is not intentional or deliberate in filing the appeal. (Emphasis supplied). 6 Upon hearing counsel for the respondent and after perusal of the grounds taken in the Civil Revision Application and the impugned order passed by the appellant court, I am of the opinion that the appellate court, taking into consideration that the respondent is an illiterate lady has allowed the application for condonation of delay with imposing of costs of Rs.500/-. 7 In my opinion, the respondent is not benefited by delaying the proceeding of filing appeal and on the contrary, the suit was decided against her and to obtain immediate reliefs, it was necessary for her to file appeal. Therefore, while considering the application for condonation of delay, it is necessary to consider whether the litigant has taken undue advantage by filing delayed proceedings. The length 4 of delay is not important, however, the sufficient cause disclosed in the application matters. In my opinion, the respondent herein by delaying the proceedings to file appeal has not been benefited in any way. No malafide intention can be attributed towards the respondent in filing the appeal after a lapse of eight months period. The petitioner herein is compensated by the appellate court by awarding costs amount of Rs.500/- to the respondent. It is also relevant to mention that during pendency of this Civil Revision Application, in pursuant to the order of condonation of delay, the appeal is numbered as R.C.A. No. 249 of 2005 and was also listed for hearing before the appellate Court on 3.3.2006. Taking into consideration the cause disclosed in the application for condonation of delay and further substantial right of the appellant should not get defeated on the technicalities, in my opinion, the appellate court has taken a plausible view. No interference is warranted in the revisional jurisdiction. No jurisdictional error or perversity has been pointed out. Hence, Civil Revision Application is devoid of any merits and the same stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/