1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4099 OF 2008. Mayawati W/o Gautam Narwade, Age 35 years, Occ.Household, R/o Yedut, Tq.Aundha Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli. ... Petitioner. Versus Shree Krishna Mandir, Kasarwada, Hingoli having its registered No. A-4835 (through its Sole Trustee) Shri Vinayak S/o Rajabai Doiphode Age 77 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Gaddepir Lane, Hingoli, at present Mitra Nagar, Taroda Naka, Nanded, through its power of attorney Shri Shridhar S/o Trimbakrao Doiphode, Age 58 years, Occ.Agril. R/o Medical Lane, Gramin Police Station Road, Hingoli, Tq. & District Hingoli. ... Respondent. ... Mr.A.A.Mukhedkar, advocate holding for Mr. Shrigopal G.Dodya, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, advocate for the Respondent. ... 2 CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. This petition arises out of order dated 27.1.2008 in context of Misc.Civil Application No.14/2007. By the impugned order, the delay condonation application came to be dismissed. 3. The petitioner is original defendant against whom interim injunction was clamped as per order dated 10.1.2007, rendered in suit bearing (RCS No.79/2006) filed by the Respondent. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of interim injunction. There was delay of one month and 29 days in filing of the said appeal. The petitioner filed an application (Misc.Civil Application No.14/2007) for condonation of delay. The petitioner asserted that she was suffering from typhoid and, therefore, was hospitalised in the midst of 3 February 2007. She was discharged from the Hospital on 6.4.2007. She produced a medical certificate in support of the application. The learned District Judge held that the petitioner failed to explain as to why the appeal was not filed within period of limitation i.e. prior to 10.2.2007. 4. Heard learned counsel. 5. It is important to note that the impugned order was rendered by the learned Civil Judge on 10.1.2007 and the appeal was required to be filed on or before 11.2.2007, excluding the day of the pronouncement of the impugned order. The failure of the petitioner to present the appeal within the given period of limitation could not be the reason to dislodge her contention about the cause shown in the application. The petitioner is a married woman. She produced medical certificate in order to show that she was suffering from typhoid. It is obvious that the hospitalisation was required only because serious treatment was necessary. 4 The approach of the appellate Court seems time rather dogmatic. There was no substantial need for the petitioner to explain why the appeal could not be presented within the period of limitation which was available to her. The delay is required to be explained in respect of the period which is after the expiry of the stipulated time provided under the law. It is well settled that liberal approach is required to be taken in such matters and particularly, when the explanation given by a party is plausible. Considering these aspects, the impugned order is quite arbitrary and improper. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the application for condonation of delay be deemed as granted. The first appellate Court to entertain the appeal if otherwise is maintainable and may consider the same on its own merits. Rule made absolute accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp409908 5