1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1167 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19553 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Udhav s/o Sivdas Kharsade & others ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the applicant ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th September, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicant. 2. The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 10.10.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Beed in L.A.R. No.325/1993. 2 3. The applicant contends that, after passing the impugned judgment and award dated 10.10.2003, the applicant applied for certified copy on 29.10.2003, which were prepared on 5.12.2003 and delivered to the applicant on the same day. Thereafter the applicant sought opinion from the office of District Government Pleader and moved the proposal to Law & Judiciary Department for sanction. Thereafter, the Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal on 16.1.2004 and referred the same to the office of Government Pleader for filing the appeal. The appeal is drafted on 31.1.2004 by the concerned A.G.P. However, the typed copies of judgment and Court fees could not be arranged for by the applicant and, therefore, delay is caused in filing the First Appeal. Hence, the applicant submits that, the delay caused in filing the First Appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional and the same was caused due to administrative reasons. 4. The applicant further submits that, there is heavy workload in the office of the applicant, due to which the delay was caused in getting the copies of judgments typed. The applicant also submits that if the delay is not condoned the impugned judgment and order will become final which will cause prejudice to the applicant. 3 5. Besides, the applicant submits that the said delay is hardly of 40 days which is not inordinate and, therefore, same be condoned in the interest of justice. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that, the delay of 40 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal appears to be unintentional and same is not inordinate. Moreover, it also appears that the said delay has been caused due to administrative reasons and compliance of procedural aspects and, therefore, same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 7. Besides, it appears that, meanwhile an order was passed by my brother Judge Justice Abhay S. Oka on 2.7.2008, allowing the application preferred by the applicant herein. 8. Moreover, the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal appears to be minor i.e. of 40 days and same is required tobe condoned in the interest of justice giving opportunity to the applicant to prosecute the accompanying First Appeal on merits and no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the delay is condoned. 4 9. In the circumstances, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) thereof and delay of 40 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned and accompanying first Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca1167.09