1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 141 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 23578 OF 2006 Sk. Asadulla s/o Isulal Daruwale ..Applicant (Orig. Claimant) VERSUS Rasadullakhan s/o Ataullakhan & ors. ..Respondents (Orig.Respondents) ..... Shri P.F.Patni, advocate for the applicant Application dismissed against respondent nos. 1 and 2 Shri P.B.Salunke, advocate h/f Shri V.R.Mundada, advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 6 Respondent nos. 4 and 5 absent inspite of service ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard respective counsel for the parties. 2 2 The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 52 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 16.6.2006 rendered by learned District Judge and Ex-officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur in M.A.C.P. No. 241 of 2003, awarding amount of Rs. 1,15,600/- with interest, out of claim amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest. 3 The applicant submits that the applicant is poor person and entire family is Dependant upon him and due to accident he became handicap and, therefore, is unable to do any work and due to poverty he could not manage the funds and, therefore,delay was caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal. It is further submitted that it was not possible for the applicant to travel from Latur to Aurangabad, since he was suffering from Chikun-Gunia and, therefore, appeal could not be filed within prescribed period of limitation, which resulted in 24 days delay and prayed that same be condoned. 4 Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 6 has opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the applicant has failed to explain the delay on day-to-day basis and the present application bears no substance and same is 3 devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 5 Considering the averments in the application and also considering the rival submissions, it is apparent that the applicant has explained the reasons for delay of 52 days in para nos. 2 and 3 thereof and apparently the applicant has explained the delay properly and satisfactorily. It also appears that the said delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not willful, deliberate or intentional. Hence, same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 6 In the circumstances, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly same stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and delay of 52 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned. The accompanying First Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca141.07