RAMARAVALUGAVADEversusSATABA GAVADU GAVADE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

A                         RAMARAVALUGAVADE
                                  v.
                      SATABA GAVADU GAV ADE (DEAD)
                         THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

                               NOVEMBER 18, 1996
B
                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

         Limitation:

         Appeal-Application for bringing legal representatives on record-
C Dismissed as time barred-Meanwhile appeal abated-Held, Courts below
    were not right in refusing to condone the delay-Delay caused due to lack
    of proper legal advice-Delay condoned-Abatement stands set aside-
    Appeal lo be decided on merits.

D           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15085 of
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.94 of the Bomb.ay High
    Court in C.R.A. No. 632 of 1991.

E           A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant.

            V.B. Joshi, Alok Singh and Umesh Bhagwat for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered ;
F
            Delay condoned.

            Leave granted.

            We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
G
         This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High
    Cou11 ofBombay, made on December 8, 1994 dismissing the Civil Revision
    No. 632/91.

H           The admitted position is that the uncle of the petitioner died pending
                                          740
                      R.R. GAV ADE v. S.G. GAV ADE                      741

Regular Civil Suit No. 51/65 in the Cou11 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, A
Chandgad. Since he died pending appeal, it was dismissed on August 4,
1967 as having abated. In Civil Revision No. 632/91 by order dated
December 8. 1994. the High Court dismissed the same. The application
was filed for bringing the Legal Representatives on record which was also
dismissed as no proper explanation for condoning the delay was given.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.                                            B

      In view of the fact that the appellant is an illiterate farmer, the
appropriate steps should have been taken by the counsel for the appellant
on proper advice. In view of the fact that the counsel has not properly
advised the appellant to take necessary steps, delay had occasioned. The
High Cou11, therefore, was not right in refusing to condone the delay. It is   C
brought to our notice that no application has been filed for setting aside
the abatement and the appeal also stands abated. In view of the fact that
the delay now stands condoned the abatement, also stands set aside.

      The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellate Court is directed
to dispose of the appeal on merits within a period of six months from the      D
date of the receipt of the order. No costs.

R.P.                                                      Appeal allowed.