(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Civil Application No. 13628 of 2009 (In First Appeal Stamp No. 29410 of 2009) 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Aurangabad. 2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department [West Division], Aurangabad. 3. The Sub-Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, .. Appellants Sub-Division Office, Vaijapur, (Original District : Aurangabad. defendants) versus Sameer s/o. Chandrakant Patel, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Proprietor of Proprietory concern namely, .. Respondent M/s. S.C. Patel, having (Original business Office at D-2, plaintiff) Tirupati Park, Gurusahani Nagar, N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ....................... Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Assistant Government Pleader, for the applicants. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate, for the respondent. (2) ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. A money decree has been passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellants / applicants on 25th August 2008, in the sum of Rs. 8,33,323/- together with interest. In filing the First Appeal, there has occasioned delay of one year. The delay is sought to be explained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application seeking condonation of delay. It is stated that the Law & Judiciary Department scrutinized the proposal and took a decision to prefer an appeal and communicated the same to the Government Pleader's office at Aurangabad on 1-1-2009. It is then stated that after receipt of the said proposal, First Appeal came to be drafted. The certified copy of the judgment and award, so also, the amount of court fees is stated to have been received, as late as, on 29th October 2009 and thus, thereafter appeal has been filed, wherein there is a delay of 367 days. 2. Though it is true that the delay is not deliberate or (3) intentional, the delay has not been very satisfactorily explained. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag, and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others (AIR 1987 SC 1353), the application deserves to be allowed. 3. Hence, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand] by the applicants to the respondent. The applicants shall deposit the costs, in this court, within a period of twelve weeks from today. On deposit of the costs, the respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the same. 4. The application accordingly stands disposed of. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/ca13628