1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICCTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 916 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 916 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 916 OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO. 4646 OF 2004 The Brihan Mumbai Mahanagarpalika ..Appellants (Org.Defendants) Vs. Salim Ahmed Akhai ..Respondent Ms. K.K.Soraan for B.M.C. Mr. J.P.Mishra i/b. Mr. Chandra Naik for respondent. CORAM: S.P.DAVARE,J. CORAM: S.P.DAVARE,J. CORAM: S.P.DAVARE,J. DATE: 12th February, 2009. DATE: 12th February, 2009. DATE: 12th February, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Perused the Application. Heard the respective learned Counsel for the applicants/appellants and the respondent. 2. The applicants/appellants is a statutory body which has preferred the present Application for condonation of delay of 137 days in filing the First Appeal. According to the applicants/appellants, the 2 appellants had filed the appeal against the impugned order dated 30th January, 2006 passed in Notice of Motion No.4111 of 2004 in Suit No.4646 of 2004 which was made absolute and thereby restraining the applicants/appellants from demolishing the suit premises. It is the contention of the applicants/appellants that the said order was intimated to the concerned department and the said papers were studied by the officers and it was ultimately opined that appeal from the said order was required to be preferred since point of law was involved as the provisions of DC Regulations were not considered nor the High Court judgment was considered. The appellants/applicants further submit that since it is a statutory body which required time to take administrative decisions which resulted into delay in filing the appeal. 3. The applicants/appellants further submit that the application for certified copy was made on 4.2.2006 and the same was received on 6.3.2006. As the original copy of the order was mixed up with the other papers and proceedings, inspite of diligence, it could not be traced and the original copy was received on 6.3.2006 and thereafter the appeal was preferred resulting into 137 days delay therefor and prayed that same be 3 condoned. 4. The respondent filed the affidavit in reply and opposed the present application and denied the averments and contentions made by the appellants/applicants specifically. It is submitted by the respondent that delay is not of 137 days, but is is more than 510 days. The said delay is not explained. It is also submitted that after passing the order by the High Court on 30.1.2006. The applicants applied for certified copy of the order on 4.2.2006 and the copy was made available for delivery on 21.2.2006 but the applicants collected the copy on 6.3.2006 and thereafter the present Appeal against the order was filed on 17.2.2007. Hence, it is submitted by the respondent that the present application for delay condonation is misconceived. It is also pointed out that even after filing the present A.O., the same was not moved for about 4 months i.e. till 18.12.2007. It is further submitted by the respondent that the application of the applicants is vague, ambiguous and no specific dates of meetings and final decision were mentioned therein and therefore the present application bears no substance and devoid of merit and the same be rejected. 5. Considering the rival submissions, admittedly, 4 the applicant is a statutory body and the applicant has put forth the cause for delay in filing the appeal i.e. the time consumed for taking administrative decision for filing the appeal against the order dated 30.1.2006. It is also submitted that the certified copy of the said order got mixed up with the other papers and proceedings and the same could not be traced out and the original copy was received ion 6.3.2006. In the said context, it appears that delay occurred in filing the appeal is not intentional but it is because of inadvertence and also because of consumption of time in taking the administrative decision and therefore interest of justice requires that the said delay is required to be condoned, but subject to payment of reasonable appropriate costs to the respondent, without entering into controversy of the days of delay, since opportunity is required to be given to the applicants to prosecute the appeal on merits. 6. In the circumstances, the present application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay occurred in filing the appeal stands condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the respondent. C.A. stands disposed of accordingly. A.O. be listed for admission in due course after the aforesaid compliance and removal of office objections, 5 if any. (S.P.DAVARE,J.) (S.P.DAVARE,J.) (S.P.DAVARE,J.)