1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3471 OF 2003 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.12430 OF 2002 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay : Applicant. Versus Moosa Mohamed Siddiq Shekha & Anr. : Respondents. Shri J.J.Xavier, for the Applicant. Shri Raju More i/by V.Talkute for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : September 19, 2008 P.C 1. By the above Civil Application, the Applicant-BMC prays for condonation of delay of 615 days in filing the above First Appeal. The reasons for the delay were mentioned in Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the Civil Application. By an order dated 8/8/2005, this Court had recorded that the reasons mentioned in the said Paragraphs were unsatisfactory in the context of the huge delay which is sought to be condoned. This Court had, therefore, directed the Joint Law Officer to file an 2 additional affidavit satisfactorily explaining the said delay of 1 year and 250 days. Accordingly, the Joint Law Officer Shri.R.A.Malandkar filed his affidavit dated 26/8/2008. In the said affidavit, the errors committed in the earlier affidavit are sought to be rectified as also the reasons mentioned in the Civil Application in Para 6 are sought to be amplified. The sum and substance of the said affidavit is that some time in December 1998, the Legal Section of the BMC which handles the Appellate Side matters was shifted on 6th floor and thereafter in May 1998 the said Section was again shifted opposite DMC (P)'s Office and in November 1999, the said Department was again shifted somewhere on the 6th floor by making temporary partition and, thereafter in January 2000 the said Section was shifted in the basement of the new building. In the process of shifting of the records from one place to another, the papers pertaining to the instant matter “got mixed up” and were found only in March 2002 and, thereafter though the certified copies were obtained in April 2000, there was a delay of 1 year and 250 days in filing the Appeal. 2. Though the reasons are sought to be amplified, in my view, 3 what is sought to be said in the said Additional Affidavit amounts to saying the same thing in a different way. 3. The above Application for condonation of delay is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel Shri.R.Z.Moray for the Respondents. He submits that the reasons mentioned in the Civil Application as well as the additional affidavit of Shri Malandkar do not constitute sufficient cause so as to enable the Applicant from being shown any indulgence and to exercise any discretion in favour of the Applicant. The learned counsel also submitted that on merits also, the Applicant-BMC has no case as in similar other cases the structures have been regularised. 4. Having considered the reasons cited in the additional affidavit of Shri Malandkar and also considering the well settled principles to be borne in mind whilst considering an application for condonation of delay where the Apex Court has held that a highly pedantic and technical approach should be eschewed and approach which furthers the cause substantial justice should be adopted. No 4 doubt the reasons cited by the Applicant for condonation of delay do not make a happy reading but considering the fact that the Applicant is a public body and some latitude should be shown to it on the said ground, in my view, case for condonation of delay is made out. The above Civil Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). In my view, the interest of justice would be served if costs of Rs.3,000/- are directed to be paid to Respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from date. The said costs to be a condition precedent. In the event, the said costs are not paid within the time stipulated by this Court, the benefit of this order would then not ennure to the Applicant and consequently, the Civil Application would stand dismissed. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]