2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application [CAZ] No. 213 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 3118 of 2011 (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhojraj S/o. Narayan Parate) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Shri M.M. Sudame, Counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Bhanarkar, Counsel for the non-applicant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, PRASSANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 13th JUNE, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that the Head Office of the applicant was situated in Mumbai and, hence, it was necessary to send the file to Mumbai and receive the opinion thereon. The applicant has stated in the application that the relevant documents along with the opinion of the Legal Advisor were received by the appellant’s Counsel in the last week of January and, hence, there was some delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The learned Counsel for the applicant relied on the decision reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 177 (State of Jammu and Kashmir and others Vs. Mohmad Maqbool Sofi and others). Shri Bhanarkar, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the applicant. He further submitted that the delay, which occured due to correspondence between the two offices of the Government or its Agency, does not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of 2 Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Counsel for the non- applicant relied on the decision reported in 2010 (5) Mh.L.J. 262 (Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another) and AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45 (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kailash Devi and others), in this regard. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the application and the reply filed thereto, it appears that the applicant has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 103 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The delay in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained in paragraph no. 2 of this Civil Application. Moreover, there cannot be one yardstick for considering the application for condoning of delay. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. In the facts of this case, since the delay is not such and the applicant has explained it satisfactorily, the prayer made in the Civil Application is granted. The Civil Application is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE *sdw