1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.5166 OF 1992. WRIT PETITION NO.5166 OF 1992. WRIT PETITION NO.5166 OF 1992. Shri Husenibhai son of Abdulkadar Kayamkhani-Bhori : Petitioner versus Smt.Jayashri widow of Vijaysing Khalate : Respondent. Mr.Rahul S.Kate for the petitioner. Mr.Prashant Kadam h/f Mr.Vijay Patil for the respondent. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : September 21, 2006. DATED : September 21, 2006. DATED : September 21, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the advocates for the petitioner and respondent. Petitioner is the landlord. He filed a suit for recovery of tenanted premises on the ground of arrears of rent. That suit came to be decreed partly i.e. the decree for arrears of rent was passed in favour of the landlord but his claim for possession was rejected. The landlord 2 2 2 thereafter filed an appeal. There was delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, he also filed an application for condonation of delay. That application came to be dismissed in default. He applied for restoration of that application. That was rejected and, therefore, this petition. 2. Heard both the advocates. When substantial rights of the parties are involved in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the District Judge, Baramati and when the petitioner has applied for restoration of his application for condonation of delay, then considering the facts and circumstances, that application should have been allowed and delay should have been condoned. 3. Mr.Kate, the advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended that now merely passing an order for restoration of the application for condonation of delay would put the parties to litigation for further period of 20 years. Therefore, looking to the facts that the delay was of 39 days only or whatever that delay may be, same should be condoned by this Court and main appeal should be directed to be heard and to 3 3 3 be decided on merits as expeditiously as possible. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and looking to the issue involved in this case, the matter has to reach finality on its own merits. 5. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). Impugned order of the District Judge rejecting the application for restoration is set aside. In the circumstances, the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned. The District Judge should hear both the parties regarding admission of main appeal. Both the parties to appear before the District Judge on 18th October 2006 with certified copy of this order and the District Judge to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible before 31st March 2007. Petition is disposed of accordingly. [D.G.DESHPANDE, J.] [D.G.DESHPANDE, J.] [D.G.DESHPANDE, J.]