1 C.A. 12748/2010 in SA St. 24501/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12748 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 24501 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. P.V.Ambade, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Dalal, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for respondent. ............................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 03/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 338 days in filing Second Appeal. 2. The Trial Court had decided the Suit by its Judgment and decree dated 19/12/2006. The present appellant being aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, preferred First Appeal before the District Court. There was delay in filing the Appeal, as such filed an application for condonation of delay. The said application came to be rejected on 23/11/2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present applicant preferred Writ Petition before this Court. Thereafter it was transpired that 2 C.A. 12748/2010 in SA St. 24501/2010 the said Writ Petition is not maintainable and the Second Appeal would lie against the said order. The said Writ Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings. Thereafter the present Second Appeal is filed in the month of August, 2010. 3. Mr. Dalal, learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the dates are considered, the applicant has not given any reasons for not filing the Second Appeal immediately after the Writ Petition was withdrawn on 26/4/2010. There is no whisper about the said fact. Even the application for certified copies was given in August, 2010, which shows the negligence of the applicant. The applicant was negligent while filing the First Appeal before the District Court and also negligent in filing the Second Appeal. The negligence can not come within the purview of “ sufficient cause ”, as such prayed for rejection of the application. 4. The Order was passed on 22/6/2009 by the Adhoc District Judge – 1, Majalgaon. Bonafide the present applicant had preferred Writ Petition and the same was being prosecuted up to 26/4/2010. At the time of hearing, it transpired that the Second Appeal would lye against the order impugned. As such, the same was withdrawn on 26/4/2010. 5. It would be seen that the applicant is an agriculturist, a rustic person residing in village. 3 C.A. 12748/2010 in SA St. 24501/2010 Time might have been lost in communication between the applicant and the Advocate. The applicant was not going to gain anything by delay. The expression “ sufficient cause ” has to be liberally construed. The applicant is not expected to explain each and every date of delay. The applicant was prosecuting wrong remedy in good faith and he shall be entitled for the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 6. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. The present Civil Application as such is disposed of. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/CA 12748.2010 in SA ST 24501.2010