1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A. No.6987/2007 in M.C.A. St. No.20253/2006 in C.A. St. No.20257/2006 in First Appeal St. No.20255/2006 ( Smt. Geeta Wd/o Shailendra Sharma & another ..V/s.. Union of India, through General Manager, Central Railway ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D.N. Mulchandani, Adv. for applicants. Ms S.V. Salwankar Adv. H/f. Mr. P.S. Lambat, Adv. for respondent. Coram : F.M.REIS, J. Dated : 12th April 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondent. This is an application for condonation of delay of 753 days in preferring the appeal challenging the judgment dated 21st September 2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in claim Application No.18/OAII/RCT/NGP/2003. It is the contention of the applicants that after the evidence was recorded and arguments 2 were heard, the matter was posted for judgment on 27th of September 2004. When the enquiries were made about the passing of the said judgment, the counsel for the applicant was informed that the judgment was not signed by one of the Members which constituted the Bench of the Claims Tribunal. It is further his contention that in spite of the numerous visits to the office of the said Tribunal no information was revealed about the passing of the impugned judgment. Ultimately, in January 2006 the applicant engaged a new counsel who immediately applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment ; on perusal of the record the counsel learnt that the second Member has signed the judgment in August 2005. Though the certified copy was obtained nevertheless, the applicant could not be informed about the said judgment as in the meanwhile she had already changed her address in view of the death of the husband. Thereafter in November 2006, she contacted her lawyer and came to know about the said judgment and immediately thereafter in December 2006 the present appeal has been filed. The respondents have filed their reply to the said application opposing the grant of condonation of delay to the applicant. The facts with regard to the non-signing of the impugned judgment by one of the Member has not been disputed by the respondent in the said reply. So also the fact that another counsel was engaged by the applicant has also not 3 been disputed. The fact that the applicant had changed her address has also not been disputed in the said reply. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though the applicant appears to have not been diligent in pursuing her remedy nevertheless, her conduct cannot be considered to be grossly negligent to dis-entitle her from hearing of the above appeal on merits. No malafides have been attributed to the applicant by the respondent in the reply filed by the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that the costs may be ordered to be paid to the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 753 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject to applicants depositing a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) with the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur. within 15 days from today. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Judge. Tambaskar.