1 ca7221.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7221 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 13460 OF 2009 Sakharam Vithoba Payghan ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri S.S.Patunkar, advocate holding for Shri N.S.Deshpande, advocate for the applicant Smt. S.D.Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7 th January, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri S.S.Patunkar, advocate holding for Shri N.S.Deshpande, advocate for the applicant and Smt. S.D.Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2 Learned counsel for the applicant tendered additional affidavit and same is taken on record and stated that copy thereof 2 ca7221.09 has been already served upon the learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3 This is an application preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 745 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal. 4 It is the contention of the applicant that the applicant has filed the accompanying First Appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 27.2.2007, passed by the 3 rd Ad hoc District Judge, Jalna, in L.A.R. No. 29 of 1997. It is also the contention of the applicant that the judgment and award was passed on 27.2.2007 and the applicant applied for certified copy thereof on 5.3.2007 and obtained the same on 23.3.2007 and filed the accompanying First Appeal on 2.7.2009, and as such delay of 745 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal. 5 In the context of said delay, it is the contention of the applicant that he is a rustic villager and was totally unaware of further course of action to be taken against the impugned judgment and award. Moreover, due to paucity of funds, he could not file appeal within the prescribed time. 3 ca7221.09 6 It is further the contention of the applicant that the compensation received by the applicant is a meager amount, which has been already spent by him in fulfilling the day-to-day family needs. It is further the contention of the applicant that the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not willful, deliberate and intentional, but same was caused due to insufficient funds, and hence, same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. 7 The learned A.G.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the applicant has not explained the delay satisfactorily and there is no cogent and sufficient reason pleaded and proved by the applicant to condone the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal. The learned A.G.P. also submitted that the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is willful, deliberate and intentional and even same is inordinate, and hence, same cannot be condoned. Accordingly, learned A.G.P. urged that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be rejected. 4 ca7221.09 8 On perusal of the contents of the present application as well as additional affidavit in reply filed by the applicant and after considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, at the out set, although it is stated by the applicant that the impugned judgment and award was passed on 27.2.2007, he applied for certified copy thereof on 5.3.2007 and obtained the same on 23.3.2007, the applicant has not explained satisfactorily the reason why the accompanying First Appeal was filed after about 745 days i.e. on 2.7.2009. 9 As regards grounds raised by the applicant in respect of paucity of funds, it was open for the applicant to approach the Legal Aid Committee in that respect, and hence, there is no substance in the said ground. 10 Hence, it is apparent that the delay of 745 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is inordinate and there is no sufficient and satisfactorily ground to condone the same, and hence, the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and as such same deserves to be rejected. 5 ca7221.09 11 In the result, present application is sans merits and same stands dismissed. Leave to file the accompanying Appeal is refused. Court fee be refunded to the applicant as per rules. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca7221.09