1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4474 OF 2007 Uddhav Shrirang Jadhav & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. Kantilal Nagnath Jadhav & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.R.S.Kate for the petitioners None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 20, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. On 18 th February 2010 notice for final disposal at admission stage was issued. There is an affidavit of service filed by the petitioners stating that notice sent to the respondents by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due has been returned with remark refused . In view of the said remark, petition is taken up for final disposal. 2 The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. A suit filed by the petitioners against the respondents was partly decreed on 1 st August 2006. The petitioners applied for a certified copy of the Judgment and decree on 2 nd August 2006. The certified copy of the Judgment was received by the petitioner on 25 th August 2006. The certified copy of the decree was received on 15 th September 2006. Thus, according to the petitioners the period of limitation for preferring the appeal expired on 22 nd September 2006 taking into account the date of receipt of the certified copy of the Judgment. The appeal was preferred on 10 th October 2006 along with an application for condonation of delay of 17 days. By the impugned order, the said 2 application has been rejected by the learned District Judge. 3 After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that a very hyper-technical approach was adopted by the learned District Judge. All that the learned District Judge has observed is that after receiving the certified copy, the appeal could have been preferred within a period of one week. Even on the basis of the certified copy received on 25 th August 2006, the delay was only of 17 days. The reasons were assigned for delay in paragraph 5 of the application by pointing out that the first petitioner was suffering from Typhoid from 25 th September 2006 till 5 th October 2006. In fact, the medical certificate was produced along with the application. A sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay. Hence, the petition must succeed. 4 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 23 rd March 2007 is quashed and set aside. Miscellaneous Application No.92 of 2006 is hereby allowed. ii)Petition is allowed in above terms. JUDGE 3