1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11623 OF 2005 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 17396 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Applicants VERSUS Dattu Dada Padghan & ors. ...Respondents ..... Smt. V.A.Shinde, A.G.P. for the applicants Shri D.R.Jaybhar, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 10 & 12 C.A. dismissed against respondent no.11. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 8th December, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By the consent of the learned respective counsel for the parties the application is taken up for final hearing. 2 Perused. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 3 The applicants/appellants have preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 354 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 5.4.2004 passed by learned District Judge, Beed, in L.A.R. No. 395 of 2000. 4 Learned A.G.P. for the applicants submits that after pronouncement of the said judgment and award dated 5.4.2004, the applicant applied for certified copies thereof on 13.4.2004 which were received on 13.7.2004. Thereafter the applicant approached the District Government Pleader and sought legal opinion, who recommended for filing the First Appeal vide communication dated 27. 7.2004. 5 Accordingly, proposal was submitted to the office of the Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, which was sanctioned on 7.9.2004 and was forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader, High Court at Aurangabad. Accordingly, the Government Pleader's office received the proposal on 10.9.2004. 6 However, the First Appeal could not be filed for want of typed copies of judgment and difference chart. Thereafter the applicant submits that the communication was issued from the 3 office of the Government Pleader asking the difference chart and typed copies of judgment on 14.9.2004. It is further submitted that due to heavy work load the applicant could not supply typed copies of judgment and the difference chart to the office of the Government Pleader and hence delay was caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal. 7 Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the present application bears no substance and is devoid of any merit and same be rejected. 8 Considering the averments in the present application and after considering the rival contentions of the parties,it appears that the applicant has explained the reasons for delay of 354 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal in para nos. 2 to 4 thereof satisfactorily. Moreover, the said delay occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not deliberate, willful or intentional and, therefore, same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 9 In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause'B' thereof and delay of 354 days caused in filing 4 the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned. Accompanying First Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. 10 Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca11623.05