1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2331 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.26844 OF 2009 WITH C.A.NO.2332 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.26906 OF 2009 WITH C.A.NO.2333 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.26899 OF 2009 WITH C.A.NO.2334 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.26897 OF 2009. WITH C.A.NO.2335 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.26895 OF 2009 WITH C.A.NO.2336 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.26901 OF 2009 WITH C.A.NO.2337 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.26903 OF 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 30.11.2010. 1. These are applications for condonation of delay of 879 days in filing the First Appeals. 2. Mrs.Kshirsagar, learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader states that the delay has occasioned due to procedural intricacies, time lapsed in getting the approval, thereafter the certified copies of the judgment and decree. The learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader submits that even on merits, the applicant has got a good case. The learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of "Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst.Katiji and others" AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353, to contend that the Court should adopt liberal approach. 3. Per contra, Mr.Gunale, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that no reasons are stated for the delay. The application is devoid of the details. The delay can not be condoned unless and until the applicant makes out a case of sufficient cause. For the said purpose, he relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in "State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others" 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 323. 4. No doubt, the expression "sufficient cause" has to be liberally construed. The applicant need not state or explain each and every days delay but at the same time the expression "sufficient cause" can not be construed in such a manner that it would erase the concept of "sufficient cause" totally. Perusal of the applications shows that it is bereft of details. The award is dated 7.4.2007 and it is stated that the office of Govt. Pleader received the Government communication dated 26.3.2008. Nothing is stated in respect of the time spent from 7.4.2007 till 26.3.2008. The applications are silent about the said fact. Even after the Govt. Pleader's office received the said proposal in March 2008, the same was drafted on 10th October, 2008. As it is at that time only the typed copies were received. Even though Appeal was drafted on 10th October, 2008, the appeals are filed in December 2009. No reason is stated for non- filing of the appeals from 10th October, 2008 till December 2009. The Division Bench of this Court in a case of "State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others" referred supra has held that the Court should exercise its discretion in condoning or declining to condone delay judiciously and the explanation rendered in the application should spell out sufficient cause. The Division Bench in the said judgment has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst.Katiji and others" referred supra by the learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader. 5. In light of the above, the Civil Applications are rejected. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.30.11.2010. asp/office/Ca2331.10