1 ao166.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 166 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11804 OF 2011 Raghunath s/o Manikrao Lahane, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Patoda, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Bapu s/o Namdeo Savashe, Age: 44 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o. Nafarwadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar and another. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. H.V. Tungar, Advocate for petitioner. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 4TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This Appeal from Order takes exception to the order dated 06-08-2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar below Exhibit-1 in Civil M.A. No. 14 of 2010. 2. The appellant herein filed an application 2 ao166.11 for condonation of delay in filing application for setting aside exparte judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 474 of 2000. Said award was passed on 24-03-2006. The application came to be filed by the appellant for condonation of delay mentioning therein that, there is delay of 150 days in filing the application for restoration. The appellant submits that, though award is passed on 24-03-2006, the appellant herein first time came to know about such award when he has received notice in execution on 25-08-2009. . Learned Counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the contents of the application which was filed for condonation of delay, which is placed on record at Exhibit-B from pages 16 to 18 of the compilation of Appeal from Order. Learned Counsel further invited my attention to Para-6 of the said application and submitted that, the delay of 150 days from 25-08-2009 was properly explained and therefore, Tribunal taking liberal approach should have 3 ao166.11 condoned the delay. 3. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Perused the contents of the application which was filed for condonation of delay. Para-6 of the said application reads thus : "6. That the applicant came to know about the exparte judgment and decree firstly on 25/8/2009 when he received notice about execution in the matter. He immediately applied for copies, but could not file application within time because of applicant was out of station as well as his financial condition is so poor. Hence he cannot appoint advocate. Hence there is delay in filing application." 4. From reading of Para-6 on which heavy reliance is placed by the Counsel for the appellant, it is abundantly clear that there is no any specific explanation offered by the appellant. 4 ao166.11 Vague averments are made in the application. It is true that "sufficient cause" should receive liberal interpretation. However, in the instant case, it cannot be forgotten that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has passed award as back as in the year 2006 and application for restoration has been filed in the year 2010. Therefore, in the instant case, the appellant should have been more careful to explain the delay by mentioning detail particulars in the application for condonation of delay. While considering the application for condonation of delay, length of delay may not be important, however, "sufficient cause" disclosed in the application for condonation of delay matters. In the present case, from perusal of the application which was filed by the appellant herein for condonation of delay before the competent Court, it is abundantly clear that, there is no sufficient cause disclosed in the said application. Genuine claim of the claimant cannot be defeated by entertaining the belated application, which is hopelessly time barred, 5 ao166.11 thereby causing prejudice to the interest of the claimants. 5. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the Appeal from Order, same stands rejected. Consequently, Civil Application stands rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/OCT11