1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 274 OF 2010 (Smt. Vijaya D. Deshmukh & Ors. vs. Shri Ganpat M. Meshram & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 12, 2010. Heard finally Shri Pande, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Awachat, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Mujumdar, learned AGPs for respondent No. 3. The challenge is to the order dated 08.10.2009 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in Revision No.118/TNC-59/13/Kharda Songeaon/01/04-05. By said order, the MRT has condoned delay of about 23 months in filing revision before it. The revision was against the order dated 19.11.2001. Shri Pande, learned counsel contends that only reasons given are in para 3, which do not show application of mind to bring on record just and sufficient reasons. Mrs. Awachat, learned counsel invites attention to reply as filed and also to those reasons to contend that MRT has considered the relevant material and found that adjudication of controversy on merits 2 was essential. The reasons without any specific mention as to dates given by MRT are, loss of certified copy, the necessity of obtaining second certified copy, death of relative and the fact of MRT not functioning for long time. The application for condonation of delay does not support any such loss of certified copy as certified copy applied for is stated to be received on 20.11.2002. Similarly, it does not support second application for certified copy. Thus, MRT has not considered the rights which accrued to the petitioners because of expiry of period of limitation and has for non existent reasons, condoned the delay. Mrs. Awachat, learned counsel has, however, pointed out that application in paras 1 & 2 shows that the copy of appellate order was misplaced and, therefore, revision could not be filed and again second application was filed for certified copy. These averments without any dates, at this stage, cannot be viewed as just and sufficient reason. Considering the fact that MRT was not functioning for quite some time and it appears that the matter was, therefore, forwarded to the Divisional Commissioner who then was acting as substitute for MRT, I am therefore, permitting respondents No.1 & 2 to file an affidavit before the MRT explaining the delay. If such an affidavit is filed, the petitioners will also be at liberty to file reply to it. Thereafter the MRT shall hear 3 both the sides, consider the relevant dates and pass appropriate orders on application for condonation of delay. For said purpose, the impugned order dated 08.10.2009 is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.