ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioners were defendants in suit filed by respondent for recovery of possession in respect of certain house property. They participated in the trial. The suit was decreed on merits. The petitioners preferred an appeal after lapse of six months from the date of pronouncement of the Judgment. They moved an· application for condonation of delay caused in filing of the appeal. Their application (MCA No. 95/2005) was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Parbhani. The petitioners challenge this order.

3. The petitioners averred that due to poverty they could not prefer the appeal within prescribed period of limitation. According to them, the delay should have been condoned by taking liberal approach. The petitioners averred that the petitioner No. 1 was suffering from illness for certain period between May and August, 2005. They submit that cause shown by them was sufficient for the condonation of delay.

4. Heard counsel for the parties.

5. Crux of the problem is as to whether there is some plausible and reasonable explanation given by the petitioners in their application (MCA No. 95

Click Here to Read the rest of this document