: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1782 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1782 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1782 OF 2007 1. R.Dalpatlal & Company & 3 Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus 1. Punjab National Bank & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.V.R.Dhond with Mr.B.B.Saraf with Mr.Mahesh Patil with Nafisa Hamid with Ms.Uma Vyavaharkar for the petitioners. Ms.Merlyn Monteiro for respondent No.1. Mr.D.A.Athavale with Mr.Girish Kulkarni for respondent No.2. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 19th June, 2008. DATE : 19th June, 2008. DATE : 19th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule. Respondents have appeared through counsels. Taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioners filed Appeal bearing No.1 of 2005 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short "DRAT") against the order passed by the learned Member of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short "DRT") on 11.2.2004 in O.A. No.2449 of 2000. 3. According to the petitioners, there was a delay of about 6 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed being M.A.No.16 of 2005. The said application was heard and rejected by the learned Member of the D.R.A.T. by order dated 19.9.2006. This order dated 19.9.2006 is : 2 : challenged in this petition. 4. We have heard learned Advocates on both the sides. It is to be noted that the learned Member of the D.R.T. passed order in O.A.No.2449 of 2000 on 11.2.2004. According to the petitioners, they received copy of said order on 7.5.2004 and the appeal was filed on 28.6.2004. It is true that the Court fees came to be paid on 23.12.2004. The date on which the payment of Court fees were paid is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the period of limitation. It is to be noted that the petitioners remained absent before D.R.T. and the judgement dated 11.2.2004 came to be passed. Considering the relevant dates, namely, 11.2.2004 and 28.6.2004, it is clear that there was a delay of about 91 days in filing the appeal. 5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank contended that the petitioners had wrongly claimed the delay of about 6 days though the delay is of about 91 days. We are not inclined to go any further into this aspect. 6. We are informed that the order passed by the D.R.T. is to the tune of Rs.5.00 crores and odd. In our : 3 : opinion, if this petition is rejected, the petitioners would not be able to put up a grievance before the D.R.A.T. against the order dated 11.2.2004 and that would close their further remedies. In our view, even if the delay of 91 days has occurred, the delay can be condoned subject to the petitioners paying costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that if the petitioners are called upon to pay costs, quantified at Rs.10,000/- and the delay is condoned, that would meet the ends of justice. Hence the order :- a) The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.9.2006 is set aside. Delay in filing Appeal No.1 of 2005 is condoned. Appeal No.1 of 2005 be decided by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in accordance with provisions of law. b) Petitioners to pay to the respondent No.1 costs, quantified at Rs.10,000/-. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) : 4 : (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)