FARAD CONTINUTION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application No.500 of 2006 in F.A.St no.2468 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office Court or Judge’s Order Memorandum of Coram appearence,Court’s Orders & Directors and Registrar’s Order --------------------------------------------------- Mr Zavier for BMC applicants Mr. B P Shukla for respondent CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. DATED 27.2.2006 DATED 27.2.2006 DATED 27.2.2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the application. There is delay of 328 days in filing the appeal. The explanation has been offered in the application. However, the applicants were called upon to file better affidavit if so advised.Further affidavit has been filed sworn by Mr.Sayed A K, Superintendent(Courts). From the affidavit now filed it transpires that it was wrongly mentioned in the civil application that certified copy was applied on 25.l.2005. Instead it is seen that that the impugned order was passed on 23.3.2004 and certified copy was applied on 5.4.2004. The certified copy was made available on l.2.2005 and after processing the matter at different levels by the local department, ultimately the appeal came to be filed on 23.9.2005, resulting in delay of about 328 days. . The learned counsel for the BMC argued that the court should take lenient view while considering the delay in filing appeals on behalf of the Government bodies. In support of this submission he relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Special Tahasildar,Land Acquisition Kerala vs K V Ayisumma, reported in AIR l996 SC 2750. Accordingly this application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). office objections if any same be removed within two weeks from today failing which the matter to stand dismissed for non prosecution without reference to court.