IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 300 OF 2008 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 1045 OF 2008 RIZVI BUILDERS ... Applicant Versus LAMARCK R. C. CLEMENTE AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. M. Singbal, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. J. Vaz, Advocate for Respondent no.5. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 31st August, 2009 ORAL ORDER Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. By consent of the parties heard forthwith. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 died. Respondent no.4 served, absent. On behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 5, no reply is filed. 4. By this application, condonation of about 33 days in filing of First Appeal is sought. Though reply is not filed by the Advocate appearing for respondent no.1, he opposed the application. According to him, length of delay is not material, however, sufficiency of the reason is to be established. From this view of point, we have considered the application filed on behalf of the applicant. In a Civil Court, after pronouncement of the Judgment by the Court, it is the ministerial act of the office/registry of the Court to prepare the Decree. In the case on hand, statement is made by the learned Counsel for the applicant that after applying the certified copy, Counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff approached the registry of the Court concerned. There he found that the Decree was not signed by the Counsel appearing for the defendant. This was pointed out by the employee of the Court concerned. Ultimately, the certified copy of the Judgment was ready on 27.02.2008. However, extension of time was inadvertently not sought. Further, we have considered paragraph 2 of the Civil Application, wherein statement is made that the Advocate for the plaintiff visited the Office of the Court and had collected the original certified copy on 27.02.2008 and the original certified copy was misplaced. 5. Condonation of delay is a matter of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. "Sufficient cause" word is used under Section 5. This has been interpreted by the Apex Court time and again. A Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (AIR 1987 S.C. 1353), may be referred to. There are six guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. One more Judgment in the matter of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (AIR 1998 S.C. 3222) also is taken into account. There, paragraph 13 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is important. "13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough toturn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of malafides or it is not put-forth as part of a dilatory strategy the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the Court should lean against acceptance o the explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when Courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the Court shall compen- sate the opposite party for his loss." 6. In view of the present view and, in our opinion, case for condonation of delay is established. 7. Civil Application is allowed in above terms and disposed off. No costs. 8. By consent of the Advocates appearing for the parties, place the matter for admission next week i.e. 07.09.2009. 9. Rule made absolute in above terms and disposed off with no Order as to costs. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. U. D. SALVI, J. arp/*