IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 236 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 830 OF 2009 SHRI. BHAGWANT VASSUDEV NAGVENKAR AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus VILLAGE PANCHAYAT ASSAGAO THROUGH SECRETARY AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. N. Joshi, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- U. D. SALVI, J. Date:- 4th February, 2010 P.C. Heard. Perused application, affidavit in support and the documents annexed thereto. 2. 79 days delay after excluding the period required for obtaining certified copy of the impugned decision has been sought to be condoned on the ground that the applicant no. 1 has been suffering from depression periodically, and loss of ability to concentrate on any issue and take decision rationally prevented him from moving Civil Revision Application against impugned Order dated 4.8.2008 and his wife was not competent enough in pursuing any legal proceedings without his support and remained occupied in taking his care. A medical certificate dated 19/2/20009 issued by Dr. R. B. Morajkar MBBS is placed on record to provide support to the contentions of the applicants. This fact as found revealed in the application remained uncontroverted by any sworned statement. In the result one has to accept what appears in the application and affidavit in support there of. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi, for the applicants submitted that though the medical certificate refers to hypertension, it is a physical condition which is suggestive of the depression an affliction of mind. In this connection one cannot loose sight of a statement in the application that the impugned Order passed by the learned trial Court created further health problem. In this context Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi for the applicants further urged the Court to be least technical and more pragmatic in guaging the worth of the cause for delay as pleaded in the application and invited attention of the Court to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353Collector, Land Acquisition Aantnag Versus Katiji. 4. Countering these submissions, learned Advocate Ms. Mulgaonkar for the respondents submitted that law expects furnishing of sufficient cause for condoning the delay and the explanation for every day that builds up into delay. Believably, it is the case of periodical depression which affected the rationality of the applicant and ability to concentrate on the work before him. It would also mean that it was not possible for the applicant to keep track of every day and explain what prevented him for so long to approach the Court. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by knocking the doors of the Apex Court late and refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at very threshold with cause of justice getting defeated, and therefore a pedantic approach insisting upon the explanation of every day delay must be given up. Going by these words the delay in the present case needs to be condoned. 5. Delay is condoned. Civil Revision application be numbered. 6. Service of notice of the Civil Revision application is waived. 7. MCA no. 236/2009 stands disposed off accordingly. U. D. SALVI, J. vn