1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (F) NO. 370 /2011 IN MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 4123/2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 397 /1997 (Taparia Limited, a Public Limited Company vs. Ravi Trading Company ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.R.C.Madkholkar, Adv. for applicant/appellant Mr A.C.Dharmadhikari, Adv. for Respondent CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI,J. DATED : 22nd August,2011. Heard. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration Application with regard to First Appeal No.397/1997, which was dismissed in default on 8.1.2007. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the delay of 1485 days has occurred in filing the application for restoration. He submits that the First Appeal was admitted in the year 1997 and not only that, as per the orders made by this Court, the entire amount under decree was deposited in the trial Court. He further argued that the amount was also withdrawn by the respondent. According to him, the said First Appeal was dismissed in default because the paper-book was not filed by the appellant within the stipulated time. However, subsequently, the paper-book was filed by the appellant which could not be taken on record due to the dismissal of the Appeal. The paper-book 2 was, in fact, ready in 1997 itself but could not be filed due to inadvertent mistake by counsel for the applicant. He, therefore, submits that in the this fact-situation, appellant should not be denied justice merely because the paper-book was not filed. Per contra, Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that there is an inordinate delay of 1485 days; whereas no plausible or satisfactory reasons have been furnished for condoning the delay. He, then, argued that the applicant ought to have been alert about its Appeal but since there is negligence on the part of the applicant there is no reason why the delay should be condoned. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and having gone through the application and the averments made therein, at the outset, I find that there is a clean statement made by the applicant in this application that it was not knowing about the orders made by this court for filing private paper-book. According to it, there was a communication gap between the Advocate and the appellant and that is why the paper- book was not filed. However, as soon as it came to know about dismissal of Appeal, i.e. after it received the notice for execution of the decree in question, the applicant immediately approached its Advocate and after enquiry, it found that the Appeal was dismissed as the paper-book was not filed. In my opinion, these reasons are good and sufficient for condoning the delay. Therefore, interest of justice requires that the Appeal that was admitted by this Court should be heard rather than burying the same without hearing on merits. Thus, I am satisfied that good and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay are put forth. Hence delay is condoned. Civil Application is allowed and disposed of. 3 M.C.A. (STAMP) NO: 4123/2011: For the reasons recorded by me for allowing the Civil Application No. 370/2011, the instant Miscellaneous Civil Application for restoration of the Appeal is allowed. MCA is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. First Appeal is restored to file. This Appeal relates to the year 1997 against a money decree and hence the parties are put on notice that the Appeal shall be heard finally. JUDGE sahare