1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1384 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 6309 OF 2009 Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. ...Applicant vs M/s. Kam-Avida Enviro Engineers Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent Mr. Sudhir Prabhu for the applicant. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16 TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. : 1. The application is for condonation of delay. There is delay of 350 days in filing of the Second Appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant – Pimpri- Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The respondent had filed a suit (RCS No.20 of 2003) for recovery of amount which was allegedly erroneously recovered from him towards octroi duty and penalty. The trial court found that the goods were erroneously charged for the octroi duty recovered in excess of 2 what was due. Therefore, decree for payment of Rs.61,441/- was granted in favour of the respondent. The first appellate court confirmed the decree by judgment dated 17th December, 2007. 3. According to the applicant, the concerned clerk of the applicant had put up the relevant file before the Municipal Commissioner for decision. Legal Advisor’s opinion was obtained and thereafter it was decided to prefer the Second Appeal. It is alleged that the entire procedure took “some time” and, therefore, there was delay. 4. It is usually probable that some time would be consumed by the office of the Municipal Corporation to process the matter. Still, however, a period of 350 days is unjustifiable inasmuch as the issue was not of complicated nature and the legal opinion was readily available from the department of the appellant. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra & ors. vs Vithu Kalya Govari & Ors. 2008(4) All.M.R. 856 held that such explanation of “procedural hassles cannot be regarded as sufficient”. In Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. vs Jose Prazeres De Piedade Pinto & Ors. 2006(4) Mh.L.J. 318, it is held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 5. Considering the fact that both the courts have rendered money decree against the appellant and the findings are 3 concurrent, without involvement of any legal issue as such, I find that even on merits there may not be a good case available with the appellant. This prima facie opinion is expressed inasmuch as ordinarily if there is a strong case in favour of the applicant then it can be also regarded as a ground for condonation of delay. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the application is meritless and, as such, dismissed. (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.)