1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 463 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO.30114 of 2008 Thankubai Shankar Adasule ... Appellant Vs. Namdev Pandurang Adasule & Ors. ... Respndents Mr. H.G.Wakshe, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Dilip Bodake, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, 6A, 7 & 8. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 2nd September, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of about 2 years and 8 months in filing the Second Appeal against the Judgment dated 24.1.2006 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.35 of 1999. It is contended that even though the judgment of the first Appellate Court was rendered on 24.1.2006, this fact was not known to the present appellant and she had come to know during discussion in the village in the month of July 2008 that the appeal was allowed. According to her, the Advocate, who was appearing for her in the said appeal, 2 had not informed her. She approached the Advocate, but still he was not ready to give proper information about the decision of the appeal. Thereafter, she engaged another Advocate, Mr. G.J.Ghadge and after enquiry, the said Advocate Mr. Ghadge filed an application for certified copy on 16.7.2008 and the certified copy was made available immediately next day i.e. 17.7.2008. The applicant is from rural area and is a poor person and therefore due to financial difficulty, she required some time to arrange for funds to engage the Advocate and to file the Second Appeal. Finally, the appeal was presented on 15.12.2008. She has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3, The application is strongly opposed by the respondent, who was the original plaintiff. The affidavit in reply is filed by Subhadra Tambe, respondent No.3. She has denied all the allegations explaining the delay. According to her, the advocate Mehta, who was appearing for the present appellant before the first appellate Court, had applied for certified copy on 3.2.2006 and had received the certified copy on 28.2.2006. She contends that she had also applied to the Revenue Authorities challenging the Mutation Entry No.787 and it was registered as RTS Appeal No.97 of 2007. That appeal was also decided on 31.1.2009 in favour of the respondents on the basis of the judgment of the first appellate Court. It is contended that Mr. Rohan Mehta, advocate, for the present appellant 3 before the first appellate Court was also her Advocate in the Revenue proceedings. She has also filed copy of the application for certified copy in support of her contention that the certified copy of the order was received by Rohan Mehta on 28.2.2006. It is contended that in view of these circumstances, the reasons given for condonation of delay are false and the application is liable to be rejected. 4. It is true that Mr. Rohan Mehta Advocate for the present applicant had applied for the certified copy and received the copy on 28.2.2006. There is no dispute that the Judgment in the appeal was rendered on 24.1.2006. However, the contention of the appellant is that her Advocate had not informed her and after she learnt in the village that the appeal was allowed. She approached that Advocate to know the status of the appeal, but he did not give proper information and thereafter she engaged another Advocate Ghadge and then applied for certified copy and thereafter this Appeal has been filed and this delay has been explained. She happens to be a poor lady coming from rural area. It is material to note that the plaintiff/respondent had filed the suit for declaration of title over the suit property on the basis of a Will executed by one Geetabai. It was the contention of the present applicant, who was the defendant, that suit property was sold away by Geetabai during her lifetime in favour of the son of the present 4 applicant by a registered sale deed. If the said property was already sold away by the deceased, the defendants could not get title on that property on the basis of the Will of Geetabai which would naturally operate only after her death and not during her lifetime. Whether the contention of the present appellant about sale deed is true or not, is to be decided in the appeal and not at this stage. The Judgments of both the Courts below disclose that this plea was taken and the trial Court had accepted it and dismissed the Suit. If on the ground of delay this Appeal is rejected, a serious prejudice and injustice is likely to be caused and, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to condone the delay even though it is for more than 2 years and 8 months. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Application is allowed. The delay is condoned. The Appeal be registered subject to other office objections, if any. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)