ssm 1 31.wp.9979.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9979 OF 2010 State of Maharashra and others ....Petitioners Versus Harmindar Singh Pratap Singh Matharu and others ....Respondents ___________ Mr. V. S. Gokhale, AGP for the Petitioner. Mr. V. V. Pai for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 15 TH MARCH, 2011 P.C.: By way of this Petition, Petitioners challenge the order dated 6 th January, 2010, vide which an application filed by the Petitioners for condonation of delay in filing Appeal came to be rejected. 2. The Respondent filed suit for recovery of arrears and the same was decreed . Being aggrieved thereby, Appeal was preferred. ssm 2 31.wp.9979.10 There was delay of 176 days for which an application for condonation of delay was filed and the same is rejected. Hence, the present Petition. 3. Mr. Gokhale, AGP submits that since the Applicant was State, the learned Trial Court ought to have taken very lenient view in the matter. He submits that in so far as the prejudice caused to the Respondent, that could have been compensated by saddling costs. 4. No doubt that when the Applicant is a State and its authority some sort of leniency is to be shown while considering the application for condonation of delay. However, that does not absolve the State and its authority from making its case short of “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay. The impugned order reveals that after the decree was put into execution by the Respondent/Plaintiff, the Petitioners were taking dates on the ground that they will comply with the decree. As such, it cannot be said that the Petitioners were not aware about the decree. The learned Trial Court while rejecting ssm 3 31.wp.9979.10 the application relied upon the judgment division bench of this Court reported in 2008 (6) Mah.L.J. 243, State of Maharashtra V/s. Vithu Kalya Govarai and others. No interference is warranted in such a matter. Hence rejected. (B. R. GAVAI, J)