IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION [CAF] NO.777 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.20702 /2009 Saetribai Kedarprasad Mehta ..vs.. Shri Anthony C. Mathai - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.STiwari, advocate for applicant Shri Masood Shareef, advocate for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : May 06, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for parties. The learned counsel for the applicant states that it is necessary to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the matter before the learned District Judge, Nagpur while considering the question of delay. The learned counsel for the applicant then states that for the reasons stated in paragraph 8 and 9 of the application, the delay of about 75 to 80 days has occasioned and that has been satisfactorily explained. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the delay is bonafide. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made in this civil application and states that the delay of about 75 to 80 days has not been satisfactorily explained in paragraph 8 and 9 of the civil application. However, on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the paragraph 8 and 9 of the application, it is clear that the applicant has satisfactorily explained the delay of 75 to 80 days, in filing the appeal. Hence the delay is condoned. The civil application is allowed and disposed of. S.O. after vacation for admission and further orders. JUDGE smp