1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3646 OF 2008 Ravindra Ratanlal Joharapurkar Aged about 63 years, Occupation : NIL R/o at present Shivkirti Apartments, Swavalambi Nagar, Nagpur. …....... Petitioner. VERSUS The State Bank of India a body corporate having Head Office at Madam Cama Road, Fort Bombay. Through the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Anjangaon Surji Branch, Taluka Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati. …....... Respondent. Shri M.K.Kulkarni, Counsel for the Petitioner. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 08th JUNE, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT 1) A notice in this matter was issued for final disposal on 21.2.2011. The office endorsement shows, that the respondent no.1 has been served, whereas the respondent no.2 has been deleted. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent no.1. In view of the order dated 21.2.2011 passed by the Court, no further .....2/- 2 notice is required to be issued to the respondent no.1. Rule. The matter is taken for final disposal. 2) By an order dated 18.10.2007, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Anjangaon Surji has dismissed RMJC No.3 of 2005 filed by the petitioner, seeking condonation of delay caused in restoration of the counter claim, on the ground, that chances of winning of the petitioner in the said suit are less and the petitioner is trying to defraud the non-applicant bank. Obviously, such reasons for rejection of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, cannot be sustained and the same will have to be set aside. 3) The reason stated in the application for condonation of delay was that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 5.8.2004 and immediately, application for certified copy was filed and it was obtained on 30.11.2004. The reason is also stated that the petitioner is suffering from ailment and hence, could not take step immediately to file application for restoration. The Trial Court has not applied his mind to the cause put forth by the petitioner, seeking condonation of delay. The contents of the application for condonation of delay were not opposed by the respondent and the application proceeded ex-parte on 10.6.2005. 4) After going through the contents of the application, I am .....3/- 3 satisfied that the sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Hence, the said application, needs to be allowed. 5) In the result, writ petition succeeds. The order dated 18.10.2007 passed in RMJC No.3 of 2005, by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Anjangaon Surji, is hereby quashed and set aside. RMJC No.3 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for condonation of 165 days delay in filing application for restoration of counter claim, is allowed. 6) Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-