1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Civil Revision Application No. 114 of 2008 (Dilip Vasantrao Gode & ors. Vs. Dilip Govindrao Khode) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 17 th January, 2009 Heard Shri Prashant Gode for the applicants. By the instant revision application, the applicants challenge the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, on 24/6/2008, allowing the application filed by the respondent for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that though the delay caused in filing the appeal is not inordinate, the same has not been satisfactorily explained by the respondent before the Joint Charity Commissioner. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that it is not stated in the application for condonation of delay as to on which date 2 the respondent got the knowledge about the decision in the Change Report Enquiry and the date on which he applied for the certified copy of the order dated 17/7/2007 and on which date he received the same. According to the counsel for the applicants, in such background, the Joint Charity Commissioner was not justified in condoning the delay by the order dated 24/6/2008. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicants, and have perused the order dated 24/6/2008. It appears from a reading of the order dated 24/6/2008 that the respondent and his counsel were not present before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, when the order dated 17/7/2007 was passed. It appears from the order that earlier, the respondent and his counsel were diligent in prosecuting the matter, but later on, the Change Report came to be rejected on account of the non- appearance of the respondent and his counsel. According to the Joint Charity Commissioner, the respondent was not aware of the passing of the order dated 17/7/2007 and as soon as he 3 became aware about it, he filed an application for grant of certified copy and after receiving the same, the appeal was preferred along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Joint Charity Commissioner considered various reported judgments which were referred by the learned counsel on both the sides and then found that in the instant case, the delay was not deliberate. The Joint Charity Commissioner observed that in order to advance justice and remove injustice, it was necessary to take a pragmatic approach in the matter, by condoning the delay. The view taken by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, in passing the order dated 24/6/2008 is neither unreasonable nor perverse. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, on 24/6/2008. The civil revision application is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP