IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 505 OF 2011 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 419 OF 2011 SMT. EVA GOMES E CORREIA (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R'S ... Applicant Versus SHRI. HONARATO RODRIGUES AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Shri Guru Shirodkar, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri V.A. Lawande, Advocate for Respondents Nos.1 & 2. Shri S. Vahidullah, Government Advocate for Respondents Nos.3 & 4. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 9th November, 2011 P.C.: Heard Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for respondents nos.1 & 2 and Shri S. Vahidullah, learned Counsel appearing for respondents nos.3 & 4. 2. This is an application for excluding the time taken by the applicants under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to prefer the First Appeal on the ground that they have availed off wrong remedy to challenge the order passed by the learned trial Judge dated 29/01/2010. 3. Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for respondents nos.1 & 2 has pointed out that the conduct of the applicants in prosecuting the suit does not entitle them for any condonation of delay. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the appeal itself is not maintainable. The learned Counsel further submitted that the applicants are unnecessarily delaying the proceedings by filing such vexatious proceedings. 4. On the other hand, Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the applicants pointed out that on the day the impugned order was passed, the applicant filed an application for restoration which came to be rejected by order dated 3/05/2010. Against the said order an appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge at Margao which also came to be dismissed. An appeal from order was also preferred before this Court and the same was also dismissed. This Court while passing the order dated 20/01/2011, dismissed the appeal reserving the right of the appellants to challenge the impugned order by availing the appropriate remedy in law. Accordingly, present appeal has been preferred. 5. Taking note of the fact that the applicants were pursuing wrong remedy to challenge the orders passed against them and in view of the fact that this Court by order dated 20/01/2011 has permitted the applicants to challenge the impugned order by appropriate proceedings, I find no reason not to allow the said application and condone the delay. The respondents have not imputed any malafides on the applicants in choosing such course of action. Hence, application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned. Registry is directed to register the appeal. All the contentions of the respondents on the maintainability of the appeal are left open. F. M. REIS, J. NH