( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3125 OF 2008 Jai Bhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shivaji Nagar, Georai, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed, through its Managing Director. PETITIONER VERSUS Godavari Shindphana Area Development and Welfare Trust, Georai, Dist. Beed and three others. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3360 OF 2008 Jai Bhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shivaji Nagar, Georai, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed, through its Managing Director. PETITIONER VERSUS Godavari Shindphana Area Development and Welfare Trust, Georai, Dist. Beed, and three others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. N.B. Jadhav, advocate, holding for Mr. N.B. Khandare, advocate for the petitioner in both writ petitions. None for the respondents, though served. ..... ( 2 ) [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 9th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. These petitions are directed against orders rendered by the learned Member of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, whereby delay condonation applications filed by the petitioner were rejected. 3. The petitioner preferred two (2) separate appeals being aggrieved by the judgements of the learned Cooperative Court at Aurangabad, in Dispute. The Dispute was filed by the petitioner in two separate cases. The Dispute came to be decided adversely to the petitioner and, therefore, two (2) separate appeals were preferred alongwith delay condonation applications. The request for condonation of delay was resisted by the ( 3 ) respondents. 4. The main contention of the petitioner before the learned appellate Judge was that certified copy of the impugned judgement was applied for on 22-04-2004. The petitioner received the copy of the impugned judgement on 21-02-2005 and thereafter was required to consult the advocate for filing of the appeal. The appeal was delayed due to non-issuance of the certified copy within a reasonable time. Consequently, the petitioner sought condonation of delay and urged to entertain the appeal. 5. The learned Member of the Cooperative Appellate Court did not find favour with the petitioner and dismissed the applications. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though served, the respondents are absent. 7. By now, it is well settled that liberal approach is required to be taken in the matter ( 4 ) pertaining to condonation of delay. Though there is no straight jacket formula as such, yet, when the reasons put forth are found to be acceptable and plausible, then the delay is required to be condoned. The learned Member of the Cooperative Appellate Court was cognizant of the legal position in as much as he has referred to the reported judgement in “Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others” (AIR 1987 S.C. 1353). 8. What transpires from the contentions of the learned counsel and the record is that likewise the two (2) appeals, similar 148 appeals were preferred by the petitioner against the adverse judgements. Mr. Jadhav makes a statement that such appeals have been entertained by the Cooperative Appellate Court. It is obvious that when the petitioner obtained the certified copies and filed such appeals within time or their request for condonation of some delay, if any, were favourably considered, ordinarily, only in respect of the present two (2) appeals, there was no substantial ( 5 ) reason for the petitioner to delay filing of the appeals before the Cooperative Appellate Court. This conduct of the petitioner shows that the copy was received at belated stage. The contention is bolstered up by an affidavit. Considering these aspects, the learned Member of the Cooperative Appellate Court should have adopted pragmatic approach. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders are unsustainable. 9. In the result, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The delay is condoned subject to costs of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) in each case. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP3125-3360-08