1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4640 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 7615 OF 2009 Namdeo s/o Baliram Rankhamb ..Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ..... Shri Prashant Deshmukh, advocate for the applicant Shri S.D.Kaldate, AGP for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 8th September, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 The applicant/appellant has preferred the present 2 application for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal under Stamp No. 7615 of 2009 challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 rendered by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in L.A.R.No. 499 of 2004 (Old LAR No. 311 of 1996). 3 The applicant contends that after passing the afore said judgment and decree, the applicant came to know the decision of the said Reference on 16.3.2009 and thereafter his advocate applied for the certified copies thereof and same were received to the applicant on 25.3.2009. Thereafter the applicant tried to get the advice of advocate at Omerga regarding review, but the concerned advocate informed to the applicant that there is no provision to set aside the said order before the concerned court. Thereafter the applicant approached the advocate at Aurangabad and handed over documents for preparation of the First Appeal on 2.4.2009 after collecting the amount for expenses. Accordingly, the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed, however, 16 days delay was caused beyond the period of limitation in filing the said appeal. 4 The applicant submits that the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is minor. He also submits that delay occurred in filing First Appeal is not intentional, deliberate and willful and 3 certainly not inordinate and, therefore, prayed that same be condoned in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the time was spent in collecting the amount for expenses and the applicant has explained the delay properly and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the present application is allowed. 5 Learned A.G.P. for the respondent vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that the present application bears no substance and is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 6 Considering the rival submissions and the reasons stated in the application, it appears that the delay of 16 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal does not appear to be willful, deliberate or intentional and is not inordinate and hence, same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. Moreover, the applicant is sanguine of success in the accompanying First Appeal and, therefore, opportunity is required to be given to the applicant to prosecute the accompanying First Appeal on its own merits. 7 In the circumstances, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” thereof and 16 days delay caused in 4 filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned. The accompanying First Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. Civil Application stands disposed of. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca4640.09