IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1032 OF 1999 WRIT PETITION NO. 1032 OF 1999 WRIT PETITION NO. 1032 OF 1999 Dr.Kumar Saptarshi. ... Petitioner. V/s. Shri Mugutrao Appji Kokare and others. ... Respondents. Avinash Bhuskute for the petitioner. M.A.Utagikar for respondent No.3. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 24th July 2008. DATED: 24th July 2008. DATED: 24th July 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 12th November, 1998 passed below Exh.1 in Misc.Application No.8/1997 by the Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Pune, whereby the application for condonation of delay in moving application for setting aside ex parte award came to be rejected. The delay is of 5 months and 25 days. 3. During the course of hearing, I was taken through the material available on record including the ex parte award, which, prima facie; demonstrates that the present petitioner/ original opponent No.3 did not become owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. There was some problem with respect to engagement of advocate. The advocate engaged by the petitioner withdrew his vakalatnama saying that he was also engaged by other side. He, thereafter, informed the present petitioner to engage another advocate. By the time another advocate is engaged, delay occurred which, ultimately, resulted in discovery of exparte decree against the present petitioner. 4. Having seen the circumstances leading to delay, in my considered view, the petitioner has made out a case for condonation of delay. The impugned order is based on hyper technical approach. Normally, the delay should be so that parties can avail remedy. In the present case, the delay is not such which could not have been condoned by the Tribunal. In the result, impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The proceedings are remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh the application for setting aside the exparte award on its own merits. The Tribunal is directed to hear and - 3 - dispose of the application for setting aside exparte award as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. Petition is disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)