ssp 1 WP(L) 2231 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2231 OF 2011 Chander Uday Singh .....Petitioner versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. ..... Respondents Ms.Soma Singh a/w Mr.Sanjay Udeshi and Mahesh Londhe i/by M/s.Sanjay Udeshi and Co., for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Khaire i/by M/s.The Law Point, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 20 th OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks deletion of the respondent Nos.3 to 10 as they are not necessary parties and are supporting the petitioner and it is therefore, not required to serve them. Leave to delete the said respondents is granted and the cause title to be amended accordingly. 3. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 21-09-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by which order the application being No.134 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the appeal came to ssp 2 WP(L) 2231 of 2011 be rejected. 4. Without burdening this order with unnecessary facts, it is required to be noted that an eviction order dated 15-06-2011 has been passed against the petitioner by the Estate Officer on the ground that he is in unauthorized occupation of the premises belonging to the respondent No.1. Against the said order, the petitioner proposed to file an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The said Appeal was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the said order passed by the Estate Officer for eviction and recovery of damages. Since the appeal was belated by 45 days, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay. It is the case of the petitioner that some time was lost as the petitioner is now based in Delhi and to procure the orders of the Estate Officer and the relevant papers and thereafter to take decision as regards the filing of the appeal, as a consequence of which a delay of 45 days has occurred. The said application filed by the petitioner being No.134 of 2011 was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the reasons mentioned by the petitioner do not commend acceptance. It is trite that in matters of condonation of delay, a highly technical and pedantic approach should be eschewed and an approach that furthers the cause of substantial justice should be adopted. In the facts and circumstances of ssp 3 WP(L) 2231 of 2011 the case, a highly technical approach in our view, should not have been adopted. It is also well settled that a party should be allowed to prosecute its remedy on merits, rather than being thrown out of technicalities. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 21-09-2011 would have to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the application No.134 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 45 days is allowed. However, interest of justice requires that the petitioner pay costs of `3,000/- to the respondent No.1. The said costs to be paid within four weeks from the date. Since the delay has been condoned, the City Civil Court is directed to take the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )