1 WP no.1217/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1217 of 2010 Ramanna Sharnappa Chakade & Anr ... Petitioners versus Basavanappa Shidappa Chakade & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. S.S. Shah for the petitioners. Mr.Ashok B. Tajane for respondents CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 14th July 2010 P.C. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Tajane waives service for respondents. 2. By consent, taken up for hearing. 3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 7 November 2009 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. District Judge-2, Solapur rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in making an application for setting aside the order of dismissal in default of an appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 12 June 2 WP no.1217/10 2007 on account of the non appearance of the petitioner and his advocate. Petitioner has stated that he was not aware of the dismissal of an appeal as the advocate had never informed him about the dismissal. He had engaged Mr.S.N.Patil as an advocate who had informed him that he would inform the petitioner when the appeal comes up for hearing. Petitioner relied on the advocate but the advocate did not inform him of the date nor did he inform him about the dismissal of the appeal. When he heard the respondents saying about the dismissal of the appeal that he made enquiries and applied for setting aside of the order of dismissal. In the process, there was a delay of about 600 days in filing of an application for restoration. 4. No doubt the delay is substantial but the length of the delay alone cannot be a ground for refusal for condonation of delay. In my view, sufficient cause has been made out by the petitioner. Party should not suffer on account of the negligence of an advocate especially when the advocate had promised that he wold inform the petitioner about the date when the appeal comes up for hearing. The petitioner being unaware of the dismissal of the appeal could not have applied for setting aside the order in time. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the delay in filing of an application for restoration of an appeal is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- as a condition precedent. Costs shall be deposited in the appellate court within eight weeks. In the event costs are not deposited within eight weeks, writ petition shall stand dismissed and Rule shall stand discharges without further reference to the court. On deposit of the costs, respondents are permitted to withdraw the costs. 3 WP no.1217/10 4. By an order dated 17 March 2010, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- as costs of this writ petition. The amount has been so deposited. Respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount towards costs of this petition. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)