This Second Appeal is preferred by defendant No. 1 against whom exparte decree is passed directing him to execute registered deed of assignment of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and whose application for condonation of delay of 121 days was rejected by the first appellate Court.

2. Heard Shri. Rahul R. Karpe, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms Neha Kamble, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr Khaire, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. This appeal is admitted by formulating following substantial question of law.

Whether the first appellate Court erred in not following settled principles of law while rejecting the application for condonation of delay?

3. Sans unnecessary details, the essential facts are as under:

Respondent No. 1, a registered Partnership Firm filed a Spl. Civil Suit No. 22/2013 against the appellant herein and respondent No. 2 – MIDC, Waluj, contending that the appellant had agreed to transfer his leasehold rights in MIDC Plot No. K-129, Waluj, Aurangabad, adm. 2250 sq.mtrs. in his favour for Rs. 5,25,000/. He had paid all the dues. Defendant No. 1 had sworn in affidavit on 18.11.2009 and undertaking on 29.12.2009 before the MIDC Officer. Since the transfer was not materialized, the suit came to be filed. Both the defendants were served with summonses but they did not file Written Statement. Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff led oral evidence. The ld. 3rd Civil Judge Sr. Divn., Aurangabad, decreed the suit on 05.03.2015 (around two years and two months from the date of institution).

4. Defendant No. 1 filed First Appeal along with application for condonation of delay (MARJI No. 239/2015) on 03.08.2015. It was his contention that, he was residing at Pune and though he had engaged a lawyer in the court at Aurangabad, he did not communicate the stages and about the disposal. The appellant's father a senior citizen aged about 78 years (retired IAS Officer) is totally dependant upon him. The appellant also met with an accident and hence he could not attend the court. When he received notice of caveat on 04.06.2015, he filed the appeal along with the request for condonation of delay of 121 days.

5. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff contending that the conduct of the appellant was deliberate and intentional so as to protract the litigation. Both the parties led evidence. The ld. First Appellate Court observed that, the appellant was coming to Aurangabad every week in connection with his business work. The ground about responsibility to take care of his father is not proved. The ld. Appellate Court has held that, there were no details about the dates of communications and there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hence, this appeal.

6. Mr. Karpe, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, there should be pragmatic, liberal, justice oriented and non-pedantic approach while condoning the delay so that the matters can be decided on merits. The length of delay is not material. The cause shown should be sufficient. The appellant had shown sufficient cause and the delay should have been condoned. The delay is not huge. The property is actually worth Rs. 2.5 crores which is shown to have been agreed to be assigned for Rs. 5.25 lakhs.

7. Per contra, Ms Neha Kamble, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, has invited my attention to the fact that, the conduct of the appellant is very much material. Though duly served and appeared, he had not filed Written Statement. He was coming to Aurangabad but he was not making enquiry with his lawyer and was not attending the matter. The court cannot help such negligent litigant. She has placed reliance on Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy reported in 2013(12) SCCC 649, Baswaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81, Prem Singh Versus State of Haryana reported in (2013) 14 SCC 88, Shantilal babu Patel v. Ramakant Subrao Shetye reported in 2018 SCC OnLine B