THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.A.No.1300 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and also Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, Standing Counsel for the respondents. At their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. This appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner as against the order of dismissing W.P.M.P.No.12271 of 2008 in W.P.No.22537 of 2000, which was ﬁled under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 125 days in ﬁling an application to set aside the order dated 13.07.2007 dismissing the writ petition for default. In the writ petition ﬁled by the appellant herein, they sought to assail the notice dated 30.12.1999 issued by the second respondent. When the matter came up on 13.07.2007 under the caption “For Dismissal”, since there was no representation, it was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the appellant has ﬁled applications, one to set aside the order dated 13.07.2007 and another one to condone delay of 125 days in ﬁling such application. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of application for condonation of delay, which was virtually ﬁled on the same day when the copy of order dated 13.07.2007 was received by the appellant, in ﬁling the application seeking to set aside the said default order, it is stated that the appellant received copy of the order 13.7.2007 in the month of October, 2007 and later the appellant CD copy was ready on 2.11.2007. However, since the Clerk has misplaced the same and it could be traced out only on 16.12.2007 and thereby the delay had occurred. The learned Single Judge on a consideration of the material on record was of the view that suﬃcient grounds are not made out to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the application. Consequently, the application to set aside the default order is also dismissed. Hence, the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, we are of the view that since the appellant is an institution and more so when the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the delay condonation application it was mentioned about the misplacing of the copy and also late intimation over the dismissal of the writ petition for default, and there being no other material placed on record denying the averments, the same can be taken for the purpose of considering the application for condonation of delay with a view to give an opportunity to the appellant. In view of the above, the delay in ﬁling the petition to set aside the default order dated 13.7.2007 is condoned. WP.MP.No.12271 of 2008 is allowed. Consequently, WP.MP.(SR) No.145430 of 2007 is also allowed. The writ petition is restored to its file. Oﬃce is directed to post the writ petition before the regular Court. Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 15th October, 2008. PNV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.A.No.1300 of 2008 15th October, 2008