( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ CIVIL APPLICATION NO.655 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.655 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.655 OF 2009 IN IN IN SECOND APPEAL NO.659 OF 2001 SECOND APPEAL NO.659 OF 2001 SECOND APPEAL NO.659 OF 2001 Shrikant Nagappa Madnaik ..Applicant V/s. Madhukar Dadoba Kamble and Ors. ..Respondents ...... Mr.T.S. Ingale for the applicant Mr. Siddharth Ronghe i/by G.S.Godbole for respondent No.1. ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 5th May, 2009 DATED : 5th May, 2009 DATED : 5th May, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The applicant was required to deposit in the trial Court every month Rs.1,500/- in terms of order dated 7th July, 2004 and if the applicant was to commit three consecutive defaults, the stay was to stand vacated automatically. The applicant has taken out this application for condonation of delay on the part of the applicant in depositing the amount naturally for of the stay. 2. I have heard learned advocates on both the sides. Learned advocate Mr.Ingale took me through the text of the application and submitted that because of the sickness, the applicant could not deposit the ( 2 ) amount and therefore in the interest of justice applicant now be permitted to deposit the amount on such terms as this Court finds fit and proper. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Ronghe for the respondent opposed the submission saying that as the delay is occasioned, the order dated 7th July, 2004 is self-operative and hence this Court has no authority to condone the delay. 3. I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned advocate Mr.Ronghe that this Court has no authority to condone the delay in depositing the amount. In my view, if the good cause is made out, certainly the delay can be condoned. After having considered the text of the application, it is noticed that the applicant was not keeping well and had to incur expenses and that is how there was some delay on the part of the applicant in depositing the amount. In my view, as the applicant is now willing to deposit the amount, the delay can be condoned and the applicant can be put to terms for condonation of delay in the nature of directing the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- by way of costs of this application and that the costs can be paid to the respondent. 4. The applicant will have to clear all the arrears upto the month of May, 2009 by 20th June, 2009 ( 3 ) and contribution for the month of June will have to be deposited on usual terms i.e. on or before 10th June, 2009 and for subsequent months to be deposited on or before 10th of each month. Hence, the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . The delay in depositing the amount @Rs.1,500/- per month is condoned. Applicant to clear of all the arrears upto the month of May,2009 by depositing the amount in the Trial Court on or before 10th June, 2009. . Amount so deposited can be withdrawn by the respondent. Deposit for the month of June to be made on or before 10th June, 2009. Subsequent deposit for the subsequent months be made on or before 10th of each month. The applicant to deposit in the trial Court Rs.3,000/- as and by way of costs of this application. Respondents are free to withdraw the said amount of costs. . Stay earlier granted stands continued. As a result of this order, Civil Application stands disposed of in the above terms. ( 4 ) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)