1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 502 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 25175 OF 2006 Sanjay @ Sanjiv s/o Raghunath Kadam ..Applicant VERSUS Smt. Radhikabai w/o Shivaji Pawar & ors. ..Respondents ..... Shri S.S.Choudhary, advocate for the applicant Respondent nos. 1 to 3 absent inspite of service Shri R.N.Reddy, advocate for respondent no.4 - absent Application dismissed against respondent no.5 Shri S.J.Sarkate, advocate holding for Shri Dhananjay Deshpande, advocate for respondent no. 6 .... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard respective counsel for the parties. 2 2 The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 355 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 31.8.2005 rendered by learned Adhoc Additional District Judge and Ex-officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nilanga, District Latur in M.A.C.P. No. 26 of 2004, awarding amount of Rs. 55,000/- to the original claimants from original respondent no.4 i.e. applicant herein. 3 The applicant contends that although the judgment and award was passed on 31.8.2005 as aforesaid, he had no knowledge thereof till 1.12.2006 and after getting the knowledge,he applied for certified copies and filed accompanying First Appeal in December, 2006 itself, which resulted into 355 days delay in filing said appeal and the applicant prayed that same be condoned in the interest of justice. 4 Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 has opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 5 Considering the averments in the application and also considering the rival submissions, it is apparent that the 3 applicant has explained the reasons for delay of 355 days in para no.1 thereof and apparently the applicant has explained the delay properly and satisfactorily. It also appears that the said delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not willful, deliberate or intentional. Hence, same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 6 In the circumstances, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly same stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and delay of 355 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned. The accompanying First Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca502.07