1204cas594.09.odt 1/2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CAS NO. 594/2009 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. 7433 OF 2009 Smt. Kusum Motiram Vaidya Vs. Bhaduji Kolbaji Vaidya through Lrs. Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr. T. N. Hulke, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. V. Sohoni, Advocate for the respondents. C ORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATED : 12/4/2010 Heard. This is an application for condonation of delay of 336 days in filing the second appeal challenging the judgment dated 3/1/2008 passed by learned District Judge, Wardha in regular civil appeal No. 136 of 2000. The main ground for delay is that the applicant is helpless widow residing far away from Nagpur and she was continuously ill and undergoing medical treatment and there was nobody to look after her and to escort her to Nagpur. It is further contended that the delay was not deliberate and that the applicant has sufficient cause on account of illness to get the delay condoned in filing the second appeal. The respondents have filed their reply opposing the said application. The respondents contend that no medical certificate has been produced to substantiate the claim of applicant’s illness and prayed that application deserves to be 1204cas594.09.odt 2/2 rejected. After hearing the learned respective Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that in the reply filed by the respondents, the contention of the applicant that she was ill and bedridden has not been specifically denied. Further, the fact that the applicant being helpless widow and there is nobody to look after her has also not been disputed in the said reply. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the contention of the applicant, I find that though the applicant might have not duly diligent in filing the second appeal, nevertheless, she cannot be labelled as a grossly negligent litigant to dis-entitle her to get the appeal being heard on merit. The respondents have not attributed any malafide to the applicant for preferring the appeal belatedly. In the interest of justice, I find that the delay in filing the second appeal deserves to be condoned subject to the applicant’s paying the respondents a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards costs as condition precedent. In view of the above, the delay of 336 days in filing the second appeal is condoned subject to the applicant’s paying sum of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) to the respondents as condition precedent within two weeks from today. The application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE wwl