FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11934 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21550 OF 2008 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard Shri S.R. Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Jadhav, learned A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri J.R. Patil, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. 2 This application is taken out for condonation of delay of 568 days caused in filing the appeal. In the application, it is averred that the impugned judgment and order was passed on 4th January, 2007 and on account of non communication of passing of the judgment and award by the Advocate appearing for the applicant as also due to poor financial condition of the applicant, he could not file the appeal in time by arranging for the court fees and expenses. The applicant has further asserted that the applicant has almost become landless. The learned Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that identical appeals arising out of the common judgment and order were admitted after condoning delay. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 submitted that no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. He relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamalbai w/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and another vs. Ganpat s/o Vithalrao Gavare, 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 807, in support of his contention that poverty cannot be considered as a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. 3 Perusal of the judgment in Kamalbai’s case (supra) would indicate that the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession, filed petition in this Court. The suit was decreed on merits. The petitioners preferred appeal which was beyond period of six months. They moved an application for condonation of delay caused in filing of the appeal, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Parbhani. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the discretion used by the District Judge cannot be lightly interfered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was held that the discretion used by the District Judge cannot be substituted by exercising discretion of this Court only due to the fact that the petitioners are from ilk of labours. 4 Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties as also the orders passed by this Court whereby delay in filing the appeals arising out of the same judgment and award was condoned by imposing costs and the appeals were admitted, in my opinion, interest of justice would be served by condoning the delay by imposing costs. I am of the opinion that the applicants have made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence, the following order: 5 Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) subject to the applicant paying costs of Rs.500/- to the 3rd respondent within a period of four weeks from today. If the costs is not paid within the stipulated period, the civil application will stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) 23.11.2009. PLK/*