1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. _________________________________________________________________ Office notes, office Memoranda of coram, appearance, court's Court's Judge's orders. Orders or directions and Registrar's orders _________________________________________________________________ CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10311 OF 2008 CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 21th August, 2009. 1. This is an application for condonation of 19 days delay caused in filing the Appeal challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under section 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988. The learned Counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to the paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the Application to submit that, sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Shri. G. G. Kadam, Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposed the claim made in the application and submits that, bare perusal of the contents of the Civil Application clearly 2 reveals that, the appellant is not vigilant in prosecuting the claim. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 further states that, if at all the delay has to be condoned, the appellant be saddled with cost. 2. It is no doubt that, length of delay does not matter but it is only satisfactory explanation which matters for condonation of delay. It is also no doubt that, every day's delay is not to be explained. Keeping in view the principles of settled law in respect of the sufficient cause for condonation of delay, I am satisfied that, the applicant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hence delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. The application accordingly allowed. 3. So far as the cost is concerned, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, there is no intention to protract the litigation. The delay caused is 3 for bonafide reasons and hence question of imposition of cost may not arise in this case. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the Respondents strongly opposed this and submits that, the Insurance Company has to be vigilant and it can not remain silent after the order is passed and allow other parties to carry on impression that, the order has attained the finality. 4. After considering these facts, I am of a view that, the delay needs to be condoned without imposing any cost. Hence Application is allowed. (R. K. DESHPANDE, J.) Dt. 21st August, 2009. GAS/ca10311.08