1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.341 OF 1994 IN First Appeal Stamp No.1420 of 1994 The State of Maharashtra Applicant versus Lahu Zendu Nhavi Respondent ---- Shri K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the applicant-opponent Shri P.F. Patni, Advocate for the Respondent-applicant. Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 27th August, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the State for condonation of delay of 730 days in filing accompanying first appeal on stamp number No.1420, challenging the judgment and award dated 3.5.1991 rendered by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in L.A.R. No.395 of 1990. 3. It is the contention of the applicant that the certified copies were applied for by the District Govt. Pleader on 13.5.1991 and was received on 14.11.1991. Resolution for filing appeal before this court came to 2 be passed by the Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad, on 10.9.1991, but the certified copies were received in the office of Government Pleader on 29.11.1991. It is also the contention of the applicant that after receipt of the certified copies, appeal was assigned to the concerned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for drafting and the same was accordingly, drafted, but after drafting, the appeal file was misplaced in the office and after due search, file was traced out. It is further contention of the applicant that the appeal involves substantial question of law and facts and the amount involved is also huge. It is, therefore, prayed that delay caused in filing appeal be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. Shri P.F. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the applicant vehemently and submitted that the reason assigned by the applicant is not sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. It is submitted that present application has no substance and the same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, the same be rejected. 5. After considering rival submissions, it is apparent that the applicant has assigned reasons for condonation 3 of delay and explained the same satisfactorily. Besides, it also appears that the said delay is not wilful, deliberate or intentional and, therefore, the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice to give opportunity to the applicant to prosecute the accompanying appeal on its own merits. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if present application is allowed, since the respondent would get opportunity to contest the appeal on its merits. 6. In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) thereof and delay of 730 days in filing accompanying first appeal stands condoned. The said appeal be registered and numbered and fixed before the concerned court on 4.10.2010. The applicant shall furnish copies of appeal and annexutres thereto to the learned counsel for the respondent within one week. 7. Present application stands disposed of, accordingly. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) pnd/ca341.94