1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1434 OF 2010 Narendra Co-op. Hsg. Society Limited Petitioner versus Smt.Meena Arun Apte and others Respondents Mr.R.M.Pethe for petitioner. Mr.A.Kumbhakoni i/by T.D.Deshmukh for respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 05th March 2010 PC :- 1. Parties were put to notice on the earlier date that the petition will be taken-up for final disposal at the admission stage. The petitioner which is a co-operative housing society has challenged the order dated 4th March 2008 passed by the learned District Judge by which application for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal against decree has been dismissed. The petitioner also applied for review of the said order and the review petition has also been dismissed. 2. The decree for possession was passed in suit filed by the respondents on 24th November 2005. The appeal along with 2 application for condonation of delay was preferred on 15th April 2006. The learned District Judge held that there was no explanation for delay and therefore he proceeded to reject the application. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the averments made in the application. He pointed out that after receiving the certified copy of the judgment and decree, a review petition was filed before the Trial Court. The review petition was decided on 8th March 2006 and thereafter the appeal was preferred. He submitted that the delay was sufficiently explained in the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and order. He submitted that by placing mere reliance on filing of review application, the delay cannot be explained. He submitted that finding of the District Court is that the review application was not prosecuted in bona fide manner as no evidence was adduced by the petitioner. It is submitted that the entire attempt of the petitioner is to defeat the decree by delaying the execution thereof. He pointed out that the decree has been passed under section 13(1)(i) and (ii) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. He submitted that no interference is called for. Lastly he pointed out that there is gross delay in filing the present petition. He pointed out that the impugned order was passed on 4.3.2008 and the present petition 3 was filed in February 2010. It is submitted that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches and therefore the writ jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be invoked by such a litigant. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The decree was passed on 21st November 2005. Application for certified copy thereof was made on 31.11.2005 and the copies were received by the petitioner on 3.1.2006. Application for review was filed on 23.1.2006 which came to be decided on 8.3.2006. The appeal was preferred on 15.4.2006. Therefore, there was more than sufficient explanation of delay in the application for condonation of delay. It is well settled that while deciding the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963, liberal and justice oriented approach is contemplated. As far as delay in preferring the present petition is concerned, in paragraph 22 of the petition, the petitioner has stated thus:- "XXII. The petitioner states that the then Chairman of the petitioner society Shri Modak was looking after the proceedings at the relevant time. The other members were under genuine belief and impression that Shri Modak will look after the matter. Now it has transpired that Shri Modak was transferred to Thane during that period and therefore he lost track of the matter. The new managing committee has recently taken charge of the affairs of the society in the month of May 2009. It was only after service of notice in Execution Proceedings, the Committee became aware of the court proceedings and immediately thereafter, the petitioner 4 consulted their lawyer and have filed the present writ petition." The petitioner is a registered co-operative housing society. In the circumstances, the explanation for delay in paragraph 22 will have to be accepted. However, the petitioner will have to be saddled with heavy costs. The amount of cost is quantified at Rs.15,000/-. 5. Hence, I pass following order :- A) The impugned order dated 4th March 2008 is quashed and set aside; B) Miscellaneous Application No.302 of 2006 is hereby allowed and delay in preferring the appeal stands condoned; C) The Appellate Court will now proceed to register the appeal. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. The Appellate Court shall endeavour to decide the appeal within a period of six months from the date on which the appeal is registered; D) The petitioner will pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the respondents within a period of eight weeks from today. Deposit of the amount of costs with the Appellate Court within stipulated time will be treated as 5 sufficient compliance; E) Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.)