1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7517 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.14883 OF 2009 Ghaus Khan Mehboob Khan Applicant V/s Shamrao Haribhau Bakle Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. Jahagirdar Shilpa G., Advocate for Respondent No.2. Smt.Patni Pramod F., Advocate for Respondent nos.1 and 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) DATE : 22nd September, 2009. PER COURT : 1. This is an application for condonation of 92 days delay caused in filing the appeal. The applicant is the original plaintiff who filed the Special Civil Suit No.308/2001 for specific performance of contract. By the impugned Judgment and decree dated 17.01.2009 the suit has been dismissed. There is delay of 92 days caused in preferring the appeal and hence this application. 2. It is avernments made in the application that, although the 2 judgment and decree was passed on 17.01.2009, the appellants were not informed by their Advocate about the decision. It is further averred that, on or about July, 2009, they contract their Advocate and at that time, they came to know about the judgment in question. Hence they applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 02.07.2009 and same was received on 03.07.2009 and instant appeal has been preferred on 18.07.2009. The learned Counsel Shri.Gangapurwala for applicant states that, Appeal is involved valuable rights of the applicant in respect of immovable property and they would not gain by delaying the proceedings. According to him, the delay caused is for bonafide reason and same therefore needs to be condoned. The learned Counsel further urged that, no third party rights are created by lapse of time, if the delay is not condoned, the applicants would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. 3. Shri. P. F. Patni appearing for the Respondent No.2 and Smt. Jahagirdar appears for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 opposes the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there is no explanation furnished by the applicant as to why they did not contact the Counsel earlier, on earlier occasion. According to them, the applicant is negligent in prosecuting the claim and the learned Counsel further contended that, although certified copy was obtain on 03.07.2009, there is no explanation for the delay till 18.07.2009 when the appeal was filed. 3 4. It is now well settled that, the condonation of delay is `Rule’ and rejection is exception. After going through the avernments made in the application, I am satisfied that, the applicant has made out sufficient cause and there is no intentional delay on the part of the applicant. It is also well settled that, every days delay is not required to be explained and what is relevant, is explanation which is offered. In view of this the application is allowed, the delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. (R.K. DESHPANDE) JUDGE GAS/ca7517.09