1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8026 OF 2010 Maula Usman Pathan ...Petitioner. v. Hamjekhan U. P. Pathan Since deceased through Legal Heirs A. Smt. Chandbi H. Pathan (Died) B. Shamandarkhan H. Pathan & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. P.G.Lad, adv. for the Petitioner. Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan, adv. For the R.Nos.1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1EE. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 26th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Petitioner before this Court is the obstructionist in Regular Darkhast No.61 of 2008. His objection to the execution was rejected by the Executing Court by the judgment and order dated 18.7.2009. He filed regular civil appeal against that judgment alongwith Miscellaneous Civil Application No.224 OF 2009 for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal and the application were filed on 13.10.2009. There was delay of 75 days excluding period required for obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and 2 decree. The trial Court rejected application for condonation of delay. 3 It appears that Executing Court passed the judgment and order on 17.9.2009. On 29.7.2009 application was filed for certified copy of the order. The copies were ready on 21.8.2009. They were actually received by the advocate for the applicant on 14.10.2009. Appeal and the application came to be filed on 30th October, 2009. It was contended that applicants were under the impression that the period of limitation would be counted from the date of receipt of the certified copy and due to this mistaken impression, delay of 75 days was caused. The learned counsel for the parties admit that even in 1983 when the original suit filed by the decree holder for eviction was pending, present petitioner had moved an application for being impleaded as party in the said suit on the ground that he had right in the property. However, that application was rejected. It appears from the judgment passed by the Civil Court that the present applicant had taken 2 fold pleas, firstly, he was co-owner and secondly, due to the lapse of long period, he become owner by adverse possession. Taking into consideration the above circumstances valuable right of the appellant is at stake. Even the delay of 75 days has been explained that due to mistaken impression about the date from which the period 3 of limitation would begin to run. 4 In view of the above circumstances, petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent. Cost be deposited with the District Court and the respondent shall be allowed to withdraw the same. If the cost is not deposited within specified time, present writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Delay in the impugned order is set aside. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.224 of 2009 is hereby allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The learned District Judge, Sangli shall expedite the hearing of the appeal and dispose off the same as early as possible. Parties and the lower Court shall act upon the authenticated copy of this order. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 4