HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 851 OF 2011 Between: Mirza Qurban Ali Baig, S/o Mirza Dawar Ali Baig ………….Appellant AND Life Insurance Corporation of India represented by its Chairman, Having its Central Office at Yougakshema, Jeevanghima Marg, Mumbai ………….Respondent JUDGMENT : (Per Honourable the Acting Chief Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED ) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.6.2011 passed in W.P.M.P.No. 2460 of 2001 in W.P.No. 20361 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge, whereby, the petition to condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside the default order was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the Writ Petition came up for hearing on 27.8.2008 and as no one appeared at the time of hearing, the Writ Petition was directed to be posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. When the Writ Petition was again taken up on 6.9.2008 under the said caption, the appellant herein was not represented. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for setting aside the default order, the appellant had stated that he was informed, during the last week of July, 2010, by a counsel that the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Court two years back and that he made an application for certified copy of the order on 3rd July, 2010 and that he filed the application after obtaining ‘no objection’ from the previous counsel. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition to condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside the default order. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he had faith in the counsel’s representation that the matter was pending, and he being a senior citizen, unaware of computers and cause-lists, did not pursue the matter any further than obtaining assurances from the counsel on record. He further submits that he should not be penalized for the negligence of his counsel and that the misrepresentation by his counsel has lead to the long delay. He placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in DEVENDRA SWAMY VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1]. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Life Insurance Corporation, appearing for the respondent submits that the order impugned is quite reasonable and needs no interference by this Court. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. The Supreme Court in DEVENDRA SWAMY VS. KARNATAKA STAE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (supra), at paragraph 5, observed as under: “5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, a Division Bench did not err in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The lawyer engaged by the respondent-Corporation was holding the papers and did not inform the Corporation of the decision in the writ appeal. The Corporation, having felt convinced of the default on the part of the lawyer, removed him from the panel of the Corporation and engaged another counsel through whom the writ appeal was filed. Sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was made out. Discretion to condone delay under S.5 of Limitation Act has been judiciously exercised by High Court, placing reasons on record and is not open to interference by this Court.” Because of the mistake committed by the counsel, the party should not suffer and the appellant herein being senior citizen trusted the advocate whom he has engaged. Since the delay is properly explained, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also following the judgment of the Supreme Court in DEVENDRA SWAMY VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (supra), we deem it appropriate to condone the delay by imposing costs of Rs. 1,000/- ( Rupees One Thousand Only ) to be paid to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, within a period of four weeks from today. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the Writ Petition is restored to file. Registry is directed to post the Writ Petition for final hearing after two weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. ​ __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, HACJ _________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 28TH OCTOBER, 2011 K. AMMAJI ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] AIR 2002 SC 2545