: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3973 OF 2004 M/s. Kwality Developers ... Petitioners Vs. Mominpada Masjid Yakub Beg Trust, Panvel. ... Respondents Mr. Karl Shroff i/b M/s. Shamim & Co. for the petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Patil for the respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J. SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J. SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 7TH FEBRUARY, 2005. 7TH FEBRUARY, 2005. 7TH FEBRUARY, 2005. P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. Shroff, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this petition, the order dated 31/7/2003 passed by the District Judge, Raigad, Alibag, rejecting the condonation of delay application filed by the applicant is under challenge. It appears that there is about seven months and twenty three days’ delay in filing the appeal. The learned judge has opined that the explanation for delay given in the application is not acceptable. It is merely stated that there was some dispute in the partnership firm. However, no particulars of the dispute are given. The learned counsel for the petitioners has : 2 : drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353. 3. It is true that the petitioners have been lethargic. But the learned judge has observed that the petitioners have spent considerable amount for the stamp of lease deed and that the lease period is for 98 years. He has further observed that more the stakes involved, one is expected to be more careful. There can be no doubt about this. But at the same time, I feel that in the interest of justice, the petitioners must be given a chance to put up their case before the lower appellate court. 4. In the light of the above judgment and in the interest of justice, I feel that the delay deserves to be condoned on saddling the petitioners with costs. Hence, the following order: O R D E R "The District Judge, Raigad, Alibag, is directed to hear the petitioners’ appeal for admission after condoning the delay on the petitioners paying costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Payment of costs shall be condition precedent for the condonation of delay and hearing of the appeal for admission." : 3 : 5. It is clarified that no ad-interim relief is granted and that no opinion has been expressed by this court on the merits of the case. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)