1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12971 OF 2005 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 21984 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..Applicants (Orig.Resps.) VERSUS Ramkrishna s/o Bhau Garje ..Respondent (No.1 Orig. Claimant) ..... Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for the applicant Respondent sole served absent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2 2 The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 163 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 5.2.2005 rendered by learned IV Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed in L.A.R. No. 232 of 2000. 3 The applicant has explained the reasons for delay in para nos. 2 and 3 of the present application and stated that after passing the impugned judgment and order on 5.2.2005, the applicant applied for certified copies on 7.2.2005 which were ready for delivery on 22.3.2005. The applicant collected the said copies on same day and thereafter submitted the proposal to the Law and Judiciary Department for sanction through the District Government Pleader’s office. The proposal was thereafter sanctioned by the Law and Judiciary Department, which was received by the Government Pleader’s office on 17.5.2005. The Government Pleader then assigned the appeal for drafting to the Assistant Government Pleader and the concerned Assistant Government Pleader then drafted the appeal and filed. As such, it is the contention of the applicant that the delay is not deliberate, willful or intentional and same was caused because of procedure to be followed by the State while filing First Appeal. 3 4 The applicant further submits that typed copies of judgment and order were prepared and submitted to the office on 27.10.2005. Accordingly, the applicant submits that the delay caused in filing the accompanying appeal be condoned in the interest of justice. 5 Considering the averments in the present application and also considering the submissions of the learned A.G.P., it is apparent that the applicant has explained the reasons for delay in filing the accompanying First Appeal in para no.2 thereof and, therefore, it appears that the said delay is not willful, deliberate or intentional and certainly it is not inordinate. 6 Besides that, an opportunity is required to be given to the applicant to prosecute the accompanying First Appeal on merits and no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent , since the respondent would get an opportunity to contest the same on merits if present application is allowed. 7 In the circumstances, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly same stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and delay of 163 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned. The 4 accompanying First Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca12971.05