1 wp7462.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 7462 of 2010 Mr. Dattu Murlidhar Apsunde & anr. ... Petitioners v/s. Smt. Chandrabhagabai M. Apsunde & ors. ... Respondents Mr. Satyajeet Dighe i/b. S.K. Shinde for the petitioners. Mr. Gite i/b. M.S.Karnik for respondents 1-6. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 08, 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard. By consent taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th July, 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioners for condonation of delay in preferring appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, 2 wp7462.10.sxw Dindori came to be rejected. 4. The respondents-plaintiffs and the petitioners-defendants are closely related to each other. It appears that the respondent no. 1 is the mother of the petitioner no. 1 and rest of the respondents are sisters of the petitioner. A Regular Civil Suit No. 89 of 2007 came to be filed by the respondents for partition and separate possession. The said suit was decreed. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal came to be preferred by the present petitioners alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The same is rejected. 5. Mr. Satyajeet Dighe, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the learned Appellate Court ought to have taken into consideration that there was no intentional delay in filing the appeal. He submits that since an impression was given to the petitioners during the pendency of the suit that the matter is being settled, they did not find it necessary to defend the suit. He submitted that only on the receipt of notice issued by TILR, the petitioners came to know about the decree being passed. 6. Mr. Karnik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent on 3 wp7462.10.sxw the contrary vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application and as such no interference is warranted. 7. It can be seen that the parties are closely related to each other. The delay is of five months. The reason given by the petitioners is that during the pendency of the suit,the respondents had given an impression that the matter will be amicably settled between them. I find that since the dispute is between the family members, it is appropriate that same is decided on merits instead of foreclosing the doors of justice to them on technical ground. Insofar as prejudice that is caused to the respondent is concerned, the same can be compensated by saddling cost. 8. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). However, this shall be subject to cost which are quantified at Rs. 15000/- for each of the respondent. The petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs. 90,000/- in the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of the said amount, the respondent shall be entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs. 15,000/- each. 4 wp7462.10.sxw 9. Taking into consideration that respondent no. 4 is 84 years old and the other respondents are also senior citizens. The learned Appellate Court shall make an endeavor to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today. It is further made clear that no unnecessary adjournments would be granted by the learned Appellate Court at the behest of the appellant. (B.R. GAVAI, J)