IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 812 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 3183 OF 2009 SALGAOCAR ENGINEERS PVT LTD AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus SOCIEDADE ZARAPKAR AND PARKAR LTD AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the Applicants. Ms. Amira Razaq, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent no.2. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 10th December, 2009 ORAL ORDER By this application, the Applicants pray for condonation of 49 days delay in filing the above Appeal from Order. The reasons for the delay have been mentioned in the application. The principal reason mentioned is the immobility of the Chairman and Managing Director Shri Anil Salgaonkar, on account of a fracture he suffered on his leg. It has been averred in the application that during the relevant period in which the Appeal was to be filed, he was undergoing treatment for the said fracture. It has further been averred that his mobility was severely affected as he was confined to a wheel chair. In support of the said case, a certificate issued by the Manipal Hospital, Goa, dated 10.10.2009 has been annexed. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicants by the learned Senior Counsel Shri Nadkarni, that considering the said facts, the Applicants have shown sufficient cause for condoning the said delay of 49 days. 2. The application is opposed on behalf of the Respondent no.1, inter alia, contending that the reason of the immobility of Shri Anil Salgaonkar could not be accepted in view of the fact that he was present in the State Assembly on few occasions between 20.07.2009 to 07.08.2009. The Respondents have annexed photographs of he addressing the Assembly. It is also stated by the learned Counsel for the Respondent no.1 that the Applicant is a corporate body and, therefore, the ground mentioned cannot be accepted. 3. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Nadkarni whilst rejoining contended that the fact that Shri Salgaonkar had suffered a fracture is not disputed by the Respondents. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that since Shri Salgaonkar in his capacity as the Chairman and Managing Director, was the person responsible for taking the decision as regards to the filing of the Appeal, there is some delay caused since the said decision took sometime in view of his immobility. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Considering the well settled principles of law, in so far as matters of delay are concerned, wherein the Apex Court has laid down that a highly technical approach should be eschewed and an approach which furthers the cause of substantial justice should be adopted, the Apex Court has further laid down that a party should be allowed to prosecute the remedy on merits than be thrown out on technical grounds, in my view, the reason cited by the Applicants in the application, can be a plausible reason for the said delay of 49 days and therefore deserves to be adopted. The Applicants, therefore, have shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 49 days. 6. The Misc. Civil Application, is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. In my view, the interest of justice would be served if the prejudice and inconvenience that is caused to the Respondent no.1, is compensated. The Applicants, therefore, to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent no.1 within a period of two weeks from date. The cost to be a condition precedent. The Applicants to file evidence of having paid the costs to Respondent no.1 and only on such evidence being produced, the office to number the Appeal. In the event costs are not paid as stipulated herein above, the application would be deemed to have been dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*