KANTA Vs. MANJULABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal. Notices on this application were issued. Pursuant to the notices issued, the non applicants appeared and filed their reply, opposing the application for condonation of delay.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Motwani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Gupte, learned counsel for the non applicants.

(3.) At the outset, it is to be mentioned that the delay is of 20 years. This delay is huge one. Merely because delay is huge one, that does not disentitle a party coming before the Court for condonation of delay. The quantum of delay may be one of the consideration however it is not the final guiding factor for the Court to decide an application for condonation of delay. A party, who seeks indulgence from the Court in respect of condonation of delay to file the appeal, burden lies on the shoulder of such a party to explain the delay, though not day by day, but by giving plausible explanation. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant entrusted her brief to her advocate and her advocate did not take any steps to pursue the matter. Consequently, the delay has occurred inasmuch as it is the submission of the learned counsel that the counsel, who was representing the applicant did not inform the outcome of the litigation to her.