: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.425 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.518 OF 2008 Shri Shridhar Jayaram Datar & Anr. ... Applicants V/s. Prabhakar Mahadev Karlekar ... Respondent Mr.K.S. Dewal for applicants. Mr.D.S. Sabnis for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 12, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil application has been filed for restoring the appeal which was dismissed on account of the conditional order passed on 23.10.2008. The application is opposed by the respondent on several grounds. 2. In the application, the applicants have mentioned that although the paperbook was ready and was given to the clerk of the advocate for filing the same in the Court, since he was unwell, the paperbook remained to be filed. The learned advocate for the respondent submits that this is not a sufficient cause for restoring the appeal. He points out that mere exigencies of work or the fact that the clerk was unwell is not sufficiently supported by documentary evidence by the applicants. He points out that no medical certificate regarding the illness of this clerk has been filed by the applicants indicating that he was in fact unwell on the date when the conditional order came into effect. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Voltas Ltd., : 2 : AIR 1995 GUJ 29. The learned advocate points out that “administrative reasons”, “administrative delay”, “administrative procedure” which are all analogous expressions as held by the full bench of the Gujarat High Court are not ipso facto sufficient to establish the case for condoning the delay. Precise factual reasons for the delay within the general ambit of the phrase must be established and that too to the satisfaction of the Court. 3. In the case of Vitthal Dhondiba Chawan & Ors. v/s. Madhavrao @ Mahadev Tukaram Chavan & Ors., 2009(5) ALL MR 613, a learned Single Judge has observed that the averments in the case before the Court were vague and unsupported by necessary documents nor did they disclose sufficient cause in order to enable the Court to take a liberal approach by condoning the delay. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel at the bar as well as the aforesaid judgments. In my view, the applicants have made out a case for condoning the delay. Even assuming a medical certificate of the registered clerk of the advocate has not been placed on record it is obvious that the applicants had entrusted their matter to an advocate who was supposed to ensure that all procedural aspects are completed and that they get justice from the court. It is now well settled that the negligence if any of either the advocate of a party or the registered clerk of the advocate, should not cause prejudice to the party litigant. 5. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the civil application must be allowed. Accordingly, the civil application is allowed. The paperbook and compilation shall be filed, as directed by the order of 23.10.2008, within a week from today. In case the orders are not complied, the earlier order dismissing the appeal will revive. : 3 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.17205 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.518 OF 2008 Shri Shridhar Jayaram Datar & Anr. ... Appellants V/s. Prabhakar Mahadev Karlekar ... Respondent Mr.K.S. Dewal for Appellants Mr.D.S. Sabnis for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 12, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil application has been filed for extending the date by which the amounts should be deposited in this Court and a further prayer for interim relief. 2. Undisputedly, the amount has been deposited in this Court as directed, albeit with a delay. 3. In my view, this civil application can be allowed since the amount has been deposited. Accordingly, the civil application made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The interim relief granted earlier by the order of 23.10.2008 will continue to run during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Appeal expedited.