1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s Orders. CA/3358/2009 GOVIND VS. RAOSAHEB CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. Dated : August 17, 2009 1. Heard Shri S.G.Chaplgaonkar, learned Advocate for the applicant and Smt. R.V.Ghogre, learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay occurred in filing the appeal as required by section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the judgment in question was delivered on 29.11.2007, application for certified copy was filed on 20.12.2007 and the appeal was preferred on 12.1.2008 in the court of learned District Judge, Osmanabad. The appeal was admitted on 15.1.2008. However, at the time of final hearing, the memo was returned by the learned District Judge on 14.1.2009. The instant appeal is filed on 3.3.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the aforesaid factual aspects, it would be seen that there is not fault on the part of the applicant/ appellant since appeal was being prosecuted before the wrong forum, as a result of which the delay has occurred and it requires to be condoned in view of section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents objects for condonation of delay and states 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s Orders. that if the delay is to be condoned, cost should be imposed on the applicant / appellant. However, keeping in view, the factual aspects of the matter, I am satisfied that the appellant has made out a sufficient cause and hence the delay occurred in filing the instant appeal needs to be condoned. 5. In the result, Civil Application is allowed. Request of learned counsel for the respondents for imposition of costs is rejected. Dt.17.8.2009 (R.K.DESHPANDE J.) akl