1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 234 of 2008 [M/s. Dr. C.P. Bhargava Vs. M/s. Chandak & Sons & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.D. Khati, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 28th March,2008. 1. Heard. 2. This Court had issued notice of final disposal. Notice is served. 3. None appears. Petition is taken up for hearing. 4. It is seen that since appeal was filed beyond limitation, Misc. Civil Application No. 380 of 2005 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. 5. The cause of delay being bona fide mistakes has been assigned. The application was proved by evidence by way of affidavit, a copy whereof is at page 34 of the paper-book. 2 6. It is seen that the said evidence went unchallenged. 7. The First Appellate Court, in the result, accepted the affidavit and after discussing the contents thereof, recorded a finding that the delay caused in preferring the appeal was not due to malafide or gross negligence, but due to wrong legal advice given to applicants and Goverdhandas by their Advocate, and due to prosecution of a remedy before a wrong forum. In order to mitigate the inconvenience to the opposite party, i.e., present petitioner, cost of Rs.6,000-00 is awarded. The order impugned is, thus, passed within the four corners of law. 8. In the circumstances, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 3