IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1228 OF 2010 Sou. Ranjana Kundlik Nalawade & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs Smt. Vithabai Dattatray Chougule. .. Respondent ­­ Shri Nitesh V. Bhutekar for the Petitioners. Shri P.D. Dalvi for the Respondent. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 7TH MAY, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. By the impugned order, an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal made by the Petitioners who are the original Defendants has been rejected by the District Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the delay was only of 32 days and by adopting a liberal approach, the delay ought to have been condoned. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents ­ Original Plaintiffs pointed out that the application for condonation of delay was not filed along with the memorandum of appeal and in fact there is a delay of more than one year in filing the application for condonation of delay for which there is no explanation. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that there is an explanation in the application for condonation of delay itself. 3. I have considered the submissions. Perusal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal shows that the appeal was filed on 6th December, 2006 but the application for condonation of delay appears to have been filed on 13th March, 2008. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Jose Pazeres De Piedade Pinto, [(2006) 4 Mah.L.J. 318], the application ought to have been filed along with the memorandum of appeal and as there was a delay in filing the application for condonation of delay, it was the duty of the Petitioners to explain the said delay. Only if after the said delay is properly explained, the Court can consider the application for condonation of delay on merits. In the present case, the delay in filing the application for condonation of delay is of more than one year. An opportunity deserves to be granted to the Petitioners to file affidavits setting out the reasons for the said delay of more than one year in making the application for condonation of delay. An opportunity deserves to be granted to the Petitioners to file documents in support of their case. It is obvious that the Respondents will be entitled to deal with the said documents and the affidavits by filing a reply/affidavit. 4. Hence, I pass the following order. (a) The impugned order dated 12th November, 2009 is quashed and set aside and the Misc. Application No.129 of 2008 is restored to file of the District Court. (b) It will be open for the Petitioners to file affidavits and documents for explaining the delay in filing the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. ( c) It will be open for the Respondents to file reply/affidavit for dealing with the said additional material which will be produced by the Petitioners. (d) After considering the affidavits and documents as aforesaid, the District Court will decide the Application No. 129 of 2008 afresh in light of the law laid down in the case of Special land Acquisition Officer (supra) as expeditiously as possible. (e) The petition is partly allowed in above terms. ( A.S. OKA, J )