1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CA NO.11879/2009 IN FAST NO.19672/2009 CA NO.11838/2009 IN FAST NO.19673/2009 CA NO.11881/2009 IN FAST NO.20012/2009 CA NO.11883/2009 IN FAST NO.20016/2009 CA NO.11885/2009 IN FAST NO.20009/2009 CA NO.11887/2009 IN FAST NO.20005/2009 CA NO.11889/2009 IN FAST NO.19999/2009 CA NO.11891/2009 IN FAST NO.19996/2009 CA NO.11893/2009 IN FAST NO.19993/2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 30.03.2010 Mr. B.A. Shinde, Advocate present for the applicants. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. present for State. Advocates Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, & Mr. Milind Patil, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. These are the applications for condonation of delay of 380 to 397 days in filing First Appeals against the common judgment and awards passed by the Civil Judge, S.D. Nilanga in group 2 of matters bearing L.A.R. Nos.51/2002 onwards. They are decided by common judgment on 30-04-2008. 2. The reason given by the applicants is that after decision on 30-04-2008, the application for certified copies was given and they were available in May 2008. Thereafter, the proposal for filing appeals was made to the office of Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Aurangabad. The Corporation sought legal advise and after taking legal opinion of Advocate on Panel, Advocate instructed the authorities to supply necessary documents for filing appeals. It is stated that Advocate received Court Fees by letter dated 14-08-2009 on 17-08-2009 and thereafter, the appeals were drafted and filed. So, main reason given is non availability of the 3 Court Fees and therefore, delay is caused. 3. Learned Advocate relied upon the observations in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others (AIR 1987 sc 1353), N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], and observations of this Court in the cse of Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil and another vs. Godawaribai w/o Laxmansingh Gahirewar and others [1999 (2) Mh.L.J. 272]. Mr. Milind Patil, Advocate and Mr. A.B. Khirosekar, Advocate for respondents strongly opposed to the applications for condonation of delay stating that the reasons are not properly given. Mr. B.A. Shinde, Advocate for the applicants states that the Corporation is undergoing financial 4 difficulties and there was no budget. 4. Considering these reasons given and perusing the judgment, in my opinion, discretion can be used in favour of the applicants on certain conditions. In the result, the applications for condonation of delay are allowed. Delay condoned. The applicants shall pay costs of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One thousand only ) as costs of each application to the respondents- claimants. First Appeals be registered. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/MAR10/ca11879.09