HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18289 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 23.3.2004 passed in M.P. No. 218 of 2003 in S.R. No. 629 of 2003 of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. The petitioner herein is respondent in A.R.C. No.1/2000-01 on the file of the Deputy Registrar/Officer on Special Duty, Prakasham District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Ongole, Prakasham. The said arbitration proceedings were initiated by the Prakasham District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Ongole, Prakasham to recover an amount of Rs.1,07,343,936/- together with interest at 25% from 35 respondents. The arbitration claim was allowed by the Tribunal by award dated 14.10.2002. As against the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate Tribunal with a delay of 52 days. To condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal, the petitioner has filed M.P. No.218 of 2003 in S.R. No.629 of 2003. The application to condone the delay was filed initially with a supporting affidavit of the Advocate, but later when there was an objection for filing such an affidavit, the affidavit obtained from the petitioner, who was residing in USA was also filed. The condone delay application in M.P. No. 218 of 2003 was dismissed by the appellate Tribunal by order dated 23.3.2004. Hence, the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of showing sufficient reasons in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, the delay has not been condoned. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the delay was not properly explained and hence the application was rightly rejected by the appellate Tribunal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order dated 23.3.2004, it is to be noticed that the appellate Tribunal mainly rejected the application on the ground that the affidavit of the party was filed after counter affidavit is filed by the respondents in M.P. No.218 of 2003. When there was an objection with regard to the affidavit filed by the petitioner stating that the Advocate cannot file an affidavit on behalf of the party, a further affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Having regard to the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the party, it cannot be said that there are no sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. Inasmuch as there is an award against the petitioner herein, who was respondent No. 8 to the tune of Rs.1,07,34,936.30ps., and in view of the availability of substantive remedy of appeal in the statute itself, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to allow the petition by condoning the delay. The Tribunal without considering the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condone petition, has rejected the M.P., mainly on the ground that there is some delay in obtaining the affidavit of the petitioner, who is not residing in India. That itself is not a ground to reject the application. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 23.3.2004 in M.P. No.218 of 2003 in S.R. No. 629 of 2003 is set aside. Consequently M.P. No.218 of 2003 stands allowed. The Tribunal shall number the appeal and take steps for disposing of the appeal in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 3rd March, 2011 pnb