1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1219 OF 2009 IN SAST No. 25566 of 2008. Vishwambhar S/o Dayanand Swami ... Applicant. Versus Mahadev S/o Dayanand Swami and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.D.R.Bhadekar, advocate for the applicant. Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent No. 5. Respondent NO.1 served. Respondent NO.4 deleted. Appeal Respondent Nos.2 and 3 dismissed as per Court's order dt.6.7.2009. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 03.12.2009. PER COURT 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. The delay is enormous being of nine (9) years and odd days. 2 2. The applicant is original plaintiff. The suit was partly decreed by the trial Court in respect of partition to the extent of house property bearing No.1092. He preferred appeal along with delay condonation application. There was delay of 5 months six (6) days in filing of the appeal before the learned District Judge, Latur. He urged that the entire suit ought to be decreed and he was entitled to seek partition in respect of the land bearing S.No.137 - Gat No.460 situated at Chakur. The first appellate Court dismissed the delay condonation application holding that the applicant failed to prove existence of "sufficient cause" in filing of the appeal at belated stage. 3. The reason for condonation of delay as given by the applicant is that he is illiterate and was unable to get information regarding the impugned order of the first appellate Court. He further submitted that he is member of "Jangam" community and was required to move from place to place due to his profession as priest of the community. He asserts that he had filed Civil 3 Revision Application No.752/2000 against the impugned order of the learned District Judge under the belief that the Revision Application U/s 115 of the C.P.C. was maintainable. However, the Revision Application was withdrawn on 16.12.2004 because of the change in law and in view of reported judgment of this Court in "Chandu S/o Jagannath Ambekar and another Vs.Digambar S/o Kisanrao Kulkarni and others" 2004 (4) Mh.L.J.69. Thereafter, he approached the advocate of this Court and instructed him to file Writ Petition. The advocate in fact, drafted the Writ Petition, yet, it was not filed because again there was change in the law due to pronouncement of a judgment by the Apex Court, wherein it has been held that dismissal of the delay condonation application in the appeal would amount to dismissal of the appeal itself and, therefore, the remedy to be adopted was by way of appeal. It was thereafter that the applicant could not contact his advocate due to his profession which required him to move from place to place. Lastly, he could contact his advocate when the delay condonation application and the 4 appeal was filed. 4. No reply is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. On the fact of it, the delay appears to be enormous and can not be ordinarily condoned without some special reasons. Still, however, the fact that the appellant is poor and illiterate person as well as the fact, he belongs to Jangam community and may be required to move from place to place has remained uncontroverted. The applicant could not have gained anything by causing delay in filing of the Second Appeal. It is matter of record that he had filed Civil Revision Application No.752/2000 which ultimately was required to be withdrawn on 16.10.2004. Obviously, the applicant was interested in pursuing the matter when he had challenged the order of the first appellate Court, whereby the delay condonation application was rejected, without consuming much time. It is true that mere change in the law could not be a ground for 5 condonation of the delay. At the same time, the practical difficulty can not be overlooked. An illiterate person is unlikely to gather information regarding change in the law within a reasonable time. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant has filed his own affidavit which shows that after withdrawal of the CRA, a Writ Petition was drafted though it was not filed in the Court. The affidavit of the advocate Mr.D.R.Bhadekar, can not be lightly brushed aside. It is explicit that the applicant intended to challenge the part of the judgment of the trial Court and also the order rendered by the first appellate Court but was required to travel upto the Court in criss cross manner. On these premises, I deem it proper to accept the explanation and condone the delay subject to appropriate costs. 7. In the result, the application is allowed subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) as costs to the Respondent No.5 - 6 Shankar Baliram Sontakke within four (4) weeks. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Ca12109