1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4659 OF 2008 1. Smt.Salimabi S. Shaikh & ors. Petitioners (Orig.Appellants) vs. The Khatik Masjid Wakf/Trust & ors. Respondents (1 to 9 orig.Respdts) Mr.T.S.Ingale for the petitioners. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh for respondents 1 to 9. Mr.R.Momin for respondent no.10. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 8th July, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Ingale, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Deshmukh, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 9 and Mr.Momin, the learned counsel for respondent No.10. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, the petitioners’ application for condonation of 8 months and 13 days delay is rejected. The facts for the disposal of the present petition are as follows: 2 4. The dispute is about C.T.S. No.132 admeasuring about 132.01 sq.mtrs. situated at Malhar Peth, Satara. The petitioners claim ownership to the suit property by way of succession and the respondents 1 to 9 claims title to this property by virtue of Gift Deed alleged to have been executed by the predecessor in title of the petitioners. 5. The present proceedings arise as the Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Board, Aurangabad by his order dated 7.2.2006 registered the said property as Wakf property of respondent no.1 under Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The petitioners being aggrieved preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Board under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Rule 50 of the Maharashtra Wakf Rules, 2003 before the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. This Appeal came to be filed on 8.1.2008. Taking these dates into consideration, there occurred some delay. The contention of the petitioners is that they got the knowledge of the order of the Chief Executive Officer only on 26.4.2007 and, therefore, there is a delay of 8 months and 13 days. For the purposes of condonation of delay, they have filed separate application. 6. The application came to be contested by respondents 1 to 9 on the various grounds and the Wakf Tribunal by the impugned order refused to condone the delay 3 observing that no sufficient explanation is given to condone the delay. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order along with the application filed for condonation of delay, I am of the opinion that delay deserves to be condoned and prejudice, if any, caused to the respondents 1 to 9 can be compensated by asking the petitioners to pay the costs. 8. The petitioners in the application for condonation of delay which is supported by the Affidavit have stated that the order dated 7.2.2006 was passed exparte without giving any notice to them and they got the knowledge of this order only on 26.4.2007. This statement made by the petitioners is not controverted by the respondents. It is further stated that the applicant no.1 is widow and applicant no.2 is student studying in Pune and applicant no.3 is again only lady who is running the house. They were not properly advised by the local Advocate and, therefore, after taking proper advise, they have applied for certified copy of the order and the same is received on 11.9.2007. It is also further stated that after receipt of certified copy of order, applicant no.1 who is old widow was not keeping well, applicant no.2 being student studying at Pune and 4 applicant no.3 is the only lady and, therefore, could not approach the Appellate Authority before January, 2008. In my view, in the interest of justice, the explanation given by the petitioners for condonation of delay deserves to be accepted. Simultaneously, the prejudice caused to the respondents 1 to 9 is required to be compensated. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the petition by passing the following order: ORDER (1) The impugned order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad in Misc.Application No.1/2008 is quashed and set aside and the petitioners application being Misc.Application No.1/2008 is allowed, subject to payment of costs fixed at Rs.3500/- as condition precedent to respondent nos.1 to 9, to be paid within a period of two weeks from today. . The Rule stands disposed of in the above terms. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]