:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7586 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7586 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7586 OF 2008 Rashida H. Faizullabhai ..Petitioner versus Badriyah Education Society (Regd. Trust) & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Murtaza Chherawala with Mr. Mihir Raje for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kanetkar for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the School Tribunal refusing to condone delay of 3 days in filing her appeal. The petitioner received the termination order on 26.4.2008. 30 days for filing the appeal expired on 26.5.2008. However the appeal was presented on 29.5.2008. There are two medical certificates on record. One medical certificate is dated 7.5.2008 prescribing 7 days bed :2: rest till 14.5.2008 and the other medical certificate is dated 20.5.2008 prescribing bed rest from 20.5.2008 to 29.5.2008. Apparently, the veracity of the certificates was doubted before the Tribunal interalia because the certificates does not mention that the petitioner was examined at her home and the affidavits of evidence do not disclose home visit of the doctor. The Tribunal has observed that there is no explanation why the doctor did not obtain the patient’s signature on the medical certificates and this shows that there is every possibility that the certificates were obtained by the petitioner’s relatives or well wishers from the hospital with signatures of the said doctor. It appears that the Tribunal has taken unduly strict view of the matter. The basic fact of the illness of the petitioner during the period of limitation does not appear to be in doubt. The doctor has deposed that the petitioner was his patient for a long time and that he treated her during the limitation period. Because there is a defect in the certificates, the petitioner cannot be held responsible, I am of the view that the application for condonation of delay ought not to have been denied. It is further obvious from the circumstances that the petitioner would not :3: deliberately delay fling of her appeal unless there was a genuine case. 3. Having regard to the circumstances and preponderance of probabilities, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 6.8.2008 is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal before the School Tribunal is condoned. Parties are directed to appear before the School Tribunal on 27.1.2009. The Tribunal may decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Rule made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)