FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1051 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.24139 OF 2000 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ This application is for condonation of delay of 95 days caused in filing the appeal. From perusal of the application and material on record, it is evident that the judgment and award was passed on 2nd May, 2000. Application for certified copy was made on 28th July, 2000 and the certified copy was delivered on 14th September, 2000. The proposal from Law & Judiciary Department, Aurangabad was received on 30th October, 2000 and the present appeal was filed on 23rd December, 2000. 2 On behalf of the respondents, affidavit in opposition is filed contending inter alia that the applicant has not properly explained the delay. Even, in the application the number of days beyond which the appeal is filed has not been mentioned. The learned Counsel for respondents further submitted that the applicant has not made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for respondents relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala and another, AIR 1998 SC 2276. In that case, the appeal was barred by 565 days and the High Court condoned the delay. That order was challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has observed that the High Court did not record any satisfaction that the explanation for the delay was either reasonable or satisfactory, which is essential prerequisite for condonation of delay. The Apex Court considered the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay and observed that the explanation given can hardly be said to be reasonable and satisfactory or proper explanation for seeking condonation of delay. In the present case, the applicant has set out reasons in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the application. I am satisfied that in the present case there is no inordinate delay. In the present case, though number of days by which delay is caused is not set out in the application, it is evident from the material on record that there is delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. In my opinion, the applicant has satisfactorily explained the delay and has made out sufficient cause for condoning the same. 3 In the interest of justice, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay of 95 days caused in filing the appeal is condoned with no order as to costs. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) 20.11.2009. PLK/*