1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13239 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL No. 11708 OF 2009 The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority .. APPLICANTS VERSUS Lala S/o Vajir Sayyad & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.B. Rakhunde, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. H.V. Tungar, Advocate h/f R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for respondent No. 5 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 1st October, 2010. PER COURT : This is an application for condonation of delay. The respondent No. 1 had filed suit seeking injunction against the present applicant. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The present applicant preferred an appeal before the District Court, there was delay of 1 months and 29 days in 2 filing the Appeal. The application for condonation of delay in filing Regular Civil Appeal was rejected by the District Court. Aggrieved by the same present applicant preferred writ Petition before this Court. On 19th September, 2008 this Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the same is not maintainable. Thereafter, due to inadvertence Advocate did not notice the order, and got the knowledge in the month of February, 2009, and thereafter, obtained the certified copy on 24th February, 2009. After getting certified copy the Second appeal is filed by the applicant. 2. I have heard the learned Counsels for the respective parties. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a Corporation and relies completely on the Advocate, as per his legal advise the Writ Petition is filed. But this Court held the same as not maintainable. According to him, Writ Petition was prosecuted in good faith. Though the Writ Petition was dismissed on 19th September, 2008, the learned Advocate appearing for the 3 applicant did not notice the order. For the first time, got the knowledge about the order in February, 2009. According to him, there is no intentional delay and the respondent was not put to any loss by causing delay, as the order of injunction was running against the applicant. 3. Per Contra, learned Counsels appearing for the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 5, vehemently opposed the application on the count that the grounds stated in the Civil Application tantamount to negligence on the part of the applicant, and the grounds do not come within the ambit and purview of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. According to them, the delay is caused because of the negligence of the applicant and same cannot be condoned. 4. I have gone through the pleadings of the applicant and the respondents No. 1 & 5 and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, in my opinion, the applicant being a Corporation would rely on the Advocate. Filing of the Writ 4 Petition is not disputed. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was dismissed in September, 2008. But the Advocate did not notice the same and it was only in February, 2009 the applicant got the certified copy. In such circumstances, the delay is caused. Taking into account the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay is condoned. 5. Though the delay is condoned the present non applicant No. 1 who is the original plaintiff has to face hardship and is required to be compensated. As such, the applicant is directed to pay cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand) to the respondent No. 1 within a period three weeks from today. The Civil Application is accordingly allowed on the aforesaid condition. The Civil Application is disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM*13239.10 CA