1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3023 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 4137 OF 2009 Khurshid Nooruddin Dyami and ors. ...Applicants VERSUS Nilchandra Sopanrao Shelke & ors. ...Respondents ----- Shri A.N.Gaddime, advocate holding for Shri V.D.Gunale, advocate for the applicants Application dismissed against respondent no.1 Shri A.R.Kale, advocate holding for Shri R.B.Deshmukh, advocate for resp. nos. 2 and 3 Shri M.M.Ambhore, advocate for respondent no. 4 absent Shri V.N.Upadhye, advocate for respondent no.5 absent ----- CORAM : SRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 14th September, 2010 PER COURT : - 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 50 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 24.9.2008, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udgir, District Latur in M.A.C.Petition No. 111 of 2003. 2 3 It appears that the applicant has explained the reason for delay in the present application, more particularly in para 2 thereof, stating that the applicant was residing at Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh State), and therefore, after judgment and award, his advocate could not contact him due to change in the address and when he came to Udgir in first week of January, 2009 for his personal work, he got the knowledge about the decision of claim petition through relatives, and thereafter he contacted the advocate immediately and applied for certified copies of the judgment and award and further thereafter filed the accompanying First Appeal without consulting the advocate, which led to 50 days delay in filing the said appeal. 4 Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the applicant has not given the specific address at Hyderabad, where he was residing and it is submitted that the applicant has failed to give the reasons for the delay satisfactorily. It is also submitted that the present application is vague and same bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same be rejected. 3 5 After considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the applicant has stated the reason i.e. change in his address, and therefore, his advocate could not contact him after passing the impugned judgment and award and although the applicant has not given the specific address at Hyderabad, it appears that the applicant has explained the reasons for the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal satisfactorily. Moreover, it also appears that the said delay is not willful, deliberate or intentional and certainly it is not inordinate, and hence, same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. 6 In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B' thereof and delay of 50 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned and said appeal be registered and numbered and present application is disposed of accordingly. [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J.] dbm/ca3023.09 4