1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4744 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8386 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 08/10/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 378 days for filing First Appeal against the Award passed by the Reference Court U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. . 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Mr. Bagal, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that the reasons stated therein do not come within the ambit and purview of ‘ sufficient cause ’. According to him, the 2 causes which have been stated, even assumed to be there, are after the lapse of limitation and as such can not be considered. He relies on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kamalbai W/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and another V/s Ganpat S/o Vithalrao Gavare reported in 2007 (1) Mh. L.J. - 807 to contend that the expression ‘ sufficient cause ’ can not be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There must be some cause for the purpose of delay condonation. According to him, the reason of poverty which is stated, can not come within the purview of ‘ sufficient cause ’ and even the cause which is stated is of the husband of the applicant. According to him, there are 3 applicants and the cause of each and every applicant has not been spelt out in the application. On all these counts, he requests for rejection of the application for condonation of delay. 4. It is the trite law that when technical considerations and the cause for substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should prevail. As has been held by the Apex Court that the judiciary is respected not because it can deny justice on technical grounds but can subserve the cause of substantial justice. The applicants are not going to gain by causing delay. The reasons are spelt out in the application i.e. the husband of the applicant was suffering from illness and even because of the marriage activities in their house. Poverty is also a 3 ground stated. The proceedings are arising out of the acquisition of the property of the applicants i.e. the agricultural land, which was the source of their livelihood . 5. More over, the learned counsel for the applicants on instructions of the applicant has stated that the applicant would waive the interest for the delayed period. 6. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed with rider that the applicants waives the interest U/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act for the delayed period. The present Civil Application is accordingly disposed off. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/CA 4744.09 in FA St. 8386.2009