1 wp-8821-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8821 of 2011 Nagnath Anandrao Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus Rukmini Mohan Jadhav & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V. S.Talkute for the Petitioner Mr. Vikramsingh Yadav for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 3­8­2011 passed by the Learned District Judge­1, Vaduj, by which order, the Civil Misc Application No.95 o 2010 for condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the appeal, came to be rejected. 3 Shorn of unnecessary details few facts which can be stated thus. The Petitioner has suffered a decree in Regular Civil Suit No.101 of 1993 which has been decreed by the Trial Court i.e. the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vaduj, by Judgment and order dated 14­8­2006. The Petitioner has challenged the said decree by filing an Appeal. However, since the Appeal was belated by 87 days, the Petitioner filed an 2 wp-8821-11 application for condonation of delay. The reason mentioned in the application is that the Petitioner was under the treatment of Orthopedic surgeon for Acute PID. The Petitioner had sought to rely upon the documents in support of his said case. The said application was rejected by the First Appellate Court on the ground that the said reasons were not worthy of acceptance. The First Appellate Court has adverted to the fact that the Petitioner had applied for certified copy after 27 days and there was no justification worth the name forth coming from the Petitioner for the same. 4 Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. No doubt there is a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal but in my view, considering the fact that a liberal approach is to be adopted in the matter of condonation of delay and since it is trite that the party should be given an opportunity to prosecute the proceedings on merits rather than to be thrown out for technical reasons, the above writ Petition is required to be allowed. The inconvenience caused to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 can be compensated by levying costs on the Petitioner. The impugned order is therefore, quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the Civil Misc Application No.95 of 2010 is required to be allowed. The delay of 87 days in filing the appeal consequently stands condoned. The District Court is directed to register the appeal and number the same. In my view, the interest of justice would be served if the 3 wp-8821-11 Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.2000/­ to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be paid within a period of 4 weeks from date. 5 Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)