1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.210 OF 2007. Jai Bhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shivajinagar, Tq.Georai, Dist.Beed. through its Managing Director. ... Petitioner. Versus Godavari Sindhaphana Area Development and Welfare Trust Georai, Dist.Beed. ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.B.Jadhav, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.U.Jadhav, advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 served. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.211 OF 2007. Jai Bhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shivajinagar, Tq.Georai, Dist.Beed. through its Managing Director ... Petitioner. Versus 2 Godavari Sindhphana Area, Development and Welfare Trust Georai, Dist. Beed and others. ... Respondents ... Mr.N.B.Jadhav, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.U.Jadhav, advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.212 OF 2007. Jai Bhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shivajinagar, Tq.Georai, Dist.Beed. through its Managing Director ... Petitioner. Versus Godavari Sindhphana Area, Development and Welfare Trust Georai, Dist. Beed and others. ... Respondents ... Mr.N.B.Jadhav, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.T.Nagargoje, advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 3 2. These petitions are directed against orders rendered by the learned Member of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, whereby delay condonation applications filed by the petitioner were rejected. 3. The petitioner preferred three separate appeals being aggrieved by the jugments of the leaned Cooperative Court at Aurangabad, in dispute. The dispute was filed by the petitioner in three separate cases. The dispute came to be decided adversely to the petitioner and therefore, three separate appeals were preferred against condonation of delay. The request for condonation of delay was resisted by the Respondents. 4. The main contention of the petitioner before the learned appellate Judge was that certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied for on 22.4.2004 alongwith various other applications in other disputes. The petitioner received the copy of the impugned judgment on 21.2.2005 and thereafter was required to consult 4 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 parties. 7. By now, it is well settled that liberal approach is required to be taken in the matter pertaining to condonation of delay. Though there is no straight jacket formula as such, yet, when the reasons putforth 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 inasmuch as he has referred to the reported judgment in "Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst.Katiji and others" A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 1353. 5 8. What transpires from the contentions of the learned counsel and the record is that likewise the three separate appeals, similar 148 appeals were preferred by the petitioner against the adverse judgments. 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 codonation of some delay, if any, were favourably considered, ordinarily only in respect of the present three appeals, there was no substantial 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, the petitions are 6 allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The delay is condoned subject to costs of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) in each case. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp21007