1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.F.NO.730 OF 2009 IN F.A.ST.NO.20221 OF 2008 Tata Finance Ltd. and ors.. ..vs... M/s Aditya Marketing and Proprietary concern. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 22nd September, 2009. Heard Mr.M.Y.Wadodkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Anjan De, learned counsel for the respondent. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal to this court. The delay is of 65 days. The ground that is mentioned in the original application is that Mr.Rushi Tatraya, who was looking after the proceedings in the court had resigned and therefore the appellants were not in fact aware of the proceedings pending before the court and they came to know only after decree was passed. Hence, the appellants contended that the delay in preferring the appeal should be condoned. 2 Subsequently, the application came to be amended and it was mentioned that the matter could not be contested before the court even though the lawyer was appointed on behalf of the defendant/appellants because of the fact that the record of the case was not available since it was with Mr.Rushi, who had resigned and left the job. The application is opposed by the plaintiff/respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have a very good case on merit and claim is very large to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/-. He submits that since the claim is large, the court should consider this aspect and condone the delay although delay may have occurred due to the lapse on the part of the lawyer in not conducting the matter properly. In view of the fact that the case was not conducted because of the non-availability of the record which was said to be lying with the Manager, who had resigned, I find no difficulty in condoning the delay. In view of this, the delay stands condoned but subject to payment of costs of Rs.1500/- to be paid within period of two weeks to respondent no.1. S.O.6/10/2009. JUDGE. chute