1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLCIATION [CAF] 639/2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2098/2010 UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..VS.. SHRI VINAYAK NARAYAN GHATATE & ORS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri Sundaram, advocate for applicant Shri Gupta, advocate for respondent no.1, Shri S.W.Sambre, advocate for respondent no.2 Mrs. Bodade, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.3 C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 21 th December, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this civil application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. It is stated in the application that the certified copy of the corrected judgment passed by the trial court was received by the applicant – Union of India on 24.9.2009. It is stated in the application that it was necessary to file the appeal within a period of 90 days, but the High Court had winter vacations from 19.12.2009 to 4.1.2010. The applicants have then stated that some time was required to seek administrative sanction and the necessary financial sanction to prefer the appeal after getting the approval from the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. It 2 is also stated in the application that the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and the same may be condoned. Shri S. W .Sambre, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that the delay in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained by the applicants. It is stated on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the applicant ought to have filed the appeal on or before 21.12.2009. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 sought for the dismissal of the application. Shri Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, also opposed the prayer made in this civil application on the ground that the delay caused in filing the appeal, in this case, is deliberate and intentional and are not bonafide. It is submitted by the learned counsel, that the applicants have stated the usual reasons for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the application, along with the replies filed by the respondents, it appears that the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and needs to be condoned. It is necessary to consider that the winter vacation of the High Court commenced on 19.12.2009 and the courts opened only on 5.1.2010. It was also necessary for the applicant to seek administrative sanction and also necessary financial sanction to prefer the appeal by getting the approval from the Ministry of Law, Justice and 3 Company Affairs. The time required by the applicant to complete these formalities is “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act. It cannot be said that the applicants had deliberately and intentionally delayed the filing of the appeal as the applicants were in hurry to seek interim relief from this court and could not have delayed the matter intentionally and deliberately. Since the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal is satisfactorily explained by the applicants, the same is condoned. The civil application is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.2098/2010 Heard Shri Sundaram, learned counsel for the appellant. Admit. Call for record and proceedings. Shri Mahesh Gupta, the learned counsel waives notice of hearing on behalf of respondent no.1. Shri S. W. Sambre, the learned counsel waives notice of hearing on behalf of respondents no.2. Mrs. Bodade, the learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice of hearing on behalf of respondent no.3. JUDGE SMP