1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6914 OF 2009 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST.NO. 13280 OF 2009 Santosh s/o Pannalal Jaiswal & anr. ...Applicants VERSUS Lakhbirsingh s/o Sardarsingh Chhabada ...Respondent ..... Shri P.M.Shah, Senior advocate instructed by Shri L.D.Vakil, advocate for the applicants Shri R.L.Chhabada, advocate for the respondent. ..... Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Dated : 17 th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. 2. The applicants (original defendants) have preferred the 2 present application for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the accompanying Civil Revision Application against the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.3.2009, passed by the District Court, Aurangabad in Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2008, which reversed and set aside the judgment and decree passed on 18.1.2008 in Rent Suit No. 52 of 2004 by the Trial Court at Aurangabad. 3. It is the contention of the applicants that they applied for certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.3.2009 immediately on 13.3.2009. It was ready on 13.3.2009, but same was received by the applicants on 29.4.2009. After receipt of the said certified copies of the judgment and decree, the applicants communicated to their advocate and requested to challenge the same before this court. 4. The applicants submit that initially the applicants had filed Second Appeal before this court. However, since the said Second Appeal was not maintainable, it was converted into accompanying Civil Revision Application. However, there was delay of 3 days in filing the same due to mistake in calculation of days. Hence, the applicants pray that the said delay be condoned in the interest of justice and opportunity be given to the applicants to prosecute the accompanying Civil Revision Application on merits. 3 5. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the present application and submitted that the present application bears no substance, same is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 6. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Considering the rival submissions, at the out set the applicants have categorically stated that due to mistake in calculation the delay of 3 days occurred in filing the Second Appeal, which was initially filed by the applicants before this court and same was converted later on in the accompanying Civil Revision Application, the said delay of 3 days therefore, is required to be condoned in the interest of justice to enable the applicants to prosecute the accompanying Civil Revision Application on merits. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents herein if opportunity is given to the applicants to prosecute the accompanying Civil Revision Application on merits, since the respondent would get the opportunity to oppose and contest the same. Moreover, it appears that the delay of 3 days caused in filing the accompanying Civil Revision Application is not willful, deliberate and intentional and, therefore, same is also required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 4 8. In the result, present Civil Application succeeds and same is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and 3 days delay in filing the accompanying Civil Revision Application stands condoned. The accompanying Civil Revision Application be registered, numbered and fixed on 22.7.2009 in urgent admission category. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent made statement on instructions that till 22.7.2009 no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. Said statement is accepted and taken on record. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) dbm/ca6914.09