:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.801 OF 2008 PETITION NO.801 OF 2008 PETITION NO.801 OF 2008 Shri Jotiram Jayram Sapkal ..Petitioner V/s Sarjerao Laxman Sapkal ..Respondents Mr. P.B. Gujar for the petitioner Mr. Khemani, AGP for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Mr. Uday Warunjikar for respondentNo.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 17TH APRIL, 2008 : 17TH APRIL, 2008 : 17TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13th December, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Satara, whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff to condone the delay of two and half months in filing the appeal has been rejected. :2: 4. The main ground on which the appellate Court has rejected the application is that the exact nature of disease which the petitioner suffered during the period from April, 2004 to July, 2004 is not mentioned in the application. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the facts of the case and the fact that the petitioner was suffering from Osteo arthritis and was under treatment of Dr. Sharma, whose medical certificate was produced before the trial Court, the trial Court ought to have condoned the delay. The learned Counsel respondent No.1 on the other hand opposed the petition and submitted that so far as medical certificate is concerned, the medical certificate is of the year 2007 and the relevant period when the petitioner was alleged to have been sick was from April, 2004 to 31st July, 2004 and that the averments in the application are not such so as to condone the delay and the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the application for condonation. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however submitted that though the medical certificate is of year 2007, the relevant period is mentioned in the medical certificate. :3: 5. I have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the material on record. In my opinion the approach of the trial Court ought to have been more pragmatic. Considering the fact that the delay is only of two and half months, in my view, interest of justice would be met, if the impugned order is set aside and the delay is condoned. I order accordingly. The delay, however, is condoned subject to costs of Rs. 7500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within 3 weeks. Payment of costs is condition precedent. 6. The impugned order is set aside and rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms and writ petition is disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)