1 wp-2967-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2967 of 2011 Balasaheb Bada Bansode .. Petitioner Versus Bhujanga Ramchandra Salunkhe .. Respondent Mr. Sural Shah for the Petitioner Mr. Ajay Joshi for Respondent No.1 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 15th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 Rule, by consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 15-01-2011 passed by the Learned District Judge-3, Solapur, by which order, the application for condonation of delay of about 6 months and 3 days, in filing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected. 3 The Petitioner was the original Defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.7 of 2005 filed by the Respondents herein for specific performance of the contract. The said suit was decreed on 5-12-2008. It appears that the Petitioner did not lead evidence in the said suit. It is the case of the 2 wp-2967-11 Petitioner that he became aware of the decree when the Respondents herein on 19-7-2009 asked him to execute a Sale Deed. Thereafter, the Petitioner gathered information upon which he came to know that the suit has been decreed against him. It is the further case of the Petitioner that certain time was lost in getting the certified copy of the said decree, resulting in delay of about 6 months and 3 days in filing the Appeal. 4 In view of the fact that the appeal was belated, the Petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner was that he was in a depressed state of mind on account of the suit filed by the Respondents and in view there of, the Petitioner was not getting out of the house and therefore, had not participated in the suit and was not aware of the decree. The said application was opposed by the Respondents herein by filing a reply. The First Appellate Court considered the said application for condonation of delay, and on the ground that the case made out by the Petitioner in the application does not commend acceptance, rejected the said application. 5 Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. No doubt the case of the Petitioner is that he was suffering from depression and that he was not getting out of the house, has not been substantiated as no material was placed on record. It is also true that the Petitioner did not lead evidence in the said suit though given an opportunity. However, in my view, the Petitioner has to be given a final indulgence to contest the matter on 3 wp-2967-11 merits. It is trite that in matters of condonation of delay, an highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and approach which furthers the cause of substantive justice should be followed. It is also well settled that a party is not required to explain each days delay. However, for the inconvenience caused to the Respondent herein who is the original Plaintiff who has a decree in his favour, the same can be compensated, by way of costs. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 15-1-2011 would have to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The delay in filing the Appeal accordingly stands condoned. In view of the fact that the decree is of the year 2008, the hearing of the said Appeal is expedited. In my view, the interest of justice would be served if the Respondent is directed to be pay costs of Rs.15,000/- which amount is deposited in this Court by the Petitioner pursuant to the order dated 20-4-2011 passed by my Learned predecessor, the Respondent would be accordingly allowed to withdraw the said amount. 6 Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)