1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application (cas) No. 884 of 2010 (In SA St.No. 18319/10) and Civil Appln. (cas) No. 885 of 2010 (In SA St. No.18322/10) Anna s/o Shriram Fate ...Versus... Tulshiram s/o Udaybhan Selokar & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.M. Gordey, Sr. Advocate & Mrs. R.D. Raskar Advocate for applicant in both the Applications. Mr. A.A. Naik Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Rohit Joshi Advocate for Res. no.5 (In CAS 884/10 and for Respondent no. 4 in CAS No. 885/10) … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 08.08.2011. By the aforesaid civil applications, the appellant has sought condonation of delay in filing appeals against the judgment and order dated 6.4.2009 passed by District Judge- 1, Bhandara, in M.J.C. No. 21 of 2009 as well as order dated 7.2.2008 passed by Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, in Appeal No. 32 of 2007 and judgment and order dated 6.4.2009 in M.J.C. No. 22 of 2009 and order dated 7.2.2008 passed by Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, in Appeal No. 31 of 2007 respectively. 2. The delay caused in both these matters 2 is of 455 days. In support of the applications for condonation of delay, Mr.Gordey, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant in both these matters, argued that the appellant has put to challenge in S.A. No. 486 of 2010 further orders made by District Judge-2 and Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, arising out of the orders in question in the present appeals and there is no delay in filing the said second appeal. He further argued that the appellant was not made a party to the proceedings in Appeal Nos. 31 and 32 of 2007 which were decided by the Joint Charity Commissioner from which M.J.C. Nos. 21 and 22 of 2009 were carried before the District Judge, in which the impugned orders were passed. The appellant not being a party in those proceedings of appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner, was not aware of those proceedings and, therefore, delay was caused in filing these two appeals. He further argued that after dismissal of M.J.C. before the District Judge on 6.4.2009 the appellant took advice of his counsel, who advised him to put to challenge the orders impugned in the present appeals since otherwise those orders would come in his way. The appellant was not aware about the fact that he would have to challenge the impugned orders also, but became aware only after the legal advice was tendered to him. These are sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. 3 3. Per contra, Mr. A.A. Naik and Mr.Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents, together opposed the applications and argued that as a matter of fact the appellant has indulged into strategic move. He did not challenge the earlier impugned orders since he was waiting for the result of earlier litigation pending. The counsel then argued that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse or reason for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay is mala fide since the appellant has indulged into making a strategy and he filed the appeals only after he failed in his strategy. The delay, therefore, cannot be condoned. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and also perused record of the connected proceedings which are pending before this Court, namely S.A. No. 486/10 and 14/11. It is not in dispute that appellant was never made a party to the proceedings of Appeal No. 31 and 32 of 2007. There is no explanation whatsoever from the respondents as to why the appellant who himself was the objector in the Change Reports before the Assistant Charity Commissioner which were accepted/rejected at his instance was not made a party before the Joint Charity Commissioner. Therefore it appears that the respondents are equally guilty of playing hide and seek as they are alleging against the appellant about his strategic move. 4 It is true that thereafter the appellant himself challenged the proceedings in Appeal before the District Judge and went ahead with the litigation. Fact remains that the outcome of the said earlier litigation resulted into final orders which are under challenge in the present second appeals in which condonation of delay has been claimed. That apart, in S.A. No. 486 of 2010 same appellant has put to challenge further orders of Joint Charity Commissioner and District Judge and that appeal is being heard for final disposal. In that view of the matter, it is not only convenient to meet the ends of justice and correct the errors, if any, by the courts below but also to set right the proceedings. The fact that the appellant took legal advice and thereafter chose to file appeal cannot be said to be a matter of ignorance of law, as the litigants are guided by the counsel and they act accordingly. This is the pragmatic view of the matter. 5. For all the above reasons, both the civil applications are allowed. Delay of 455 days caused in filing the appeal is condoned subject to costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. one thousand) in each case payable to respondents forthwith. Since the matters are being heard together and this Court has spent sufficient time on these connected matters, Registry to list these matters for final disposal at the admission board on 08.8.2011. Both the civil 5 applications are disposed of. Judge /TA/