1 cas1693-08 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1693 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 14203 OF 2006 Jasbeersingh Amriksingh Anand .. Applicant V/s. Chief Goods Supervisor & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Amol D. Wagh i/b. Mr. Harshad E. Palve for the applicant. Mr. T. J. Pandian for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Delay in preferring Second Appeal is of 204 days. 2. The impugned decree was passed by the District Court, Nashik on 5th July, 2005. An application for certified copy of the Judgment and decree was made on 6th July, 2005. The certified copies were received on 19th July, 2005. It is stated that the applicant had entrusted the papers to an advocate for preferring an Appeal. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the application read thus: “5. The Applicant states that there was heavy rainfall on dt. 26th July, 2005 due to which there were floods in several places at Thane and Mumbai. Due to which the office of Advocate Harshad E. Pal we got 2 cas1693-08 flooded as it is situated on ground floor of building. Because of any rainfall there was food and the office of Mr. Palwe comes under the low-lying area due to which the rain water reached upto 7 feet of the building and all the papers and proceeding of the present matter and other matters was also damaged alongwith the other things at office. 6. Thereafter the advocate of the Applicant could not be contacted as all telephone lines were damaged there was no contract possible 2 weeks thereafter the applicant came to know of the aforesaid incident and was told to get fresh copies of the documents. However because of communication problem the applicant inform informed this advocate about inability to reach Bombay.” In paragraph No.7 it is stated that in October 2005, the applicant was ill. A medical certificate dated 10th November, 2005 is placed on record. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the application. He pointed out that the photo copies of the certified copies obtained on 19th July, 2005 have been annexed to the Memorandum of Second Appeal and, hence, the ground set out that the said copies were lost in floods is false. 4. Perusal of the record shows that the Appeal has been preferred on the basis of the certified copies of the Memorandum of Appeal, Judgment and decree applied for on 10th August, 2006 which were received on 16th August, 2006. Perhaps, the 3 cas1693-08 photocopies which were earlier made from the certified copies obtained on 19th July, 2005 have been annexed to the Memorandum of Appeal of the Second Appeal. 5. In view of the averments made in paragraph No.5 to 7 of the application, a case for condonation of delay is made out. However, the applicant will have to pay costs to the respondents quantified at Rs.2,500/-. 6. Hence, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Applicant shall pay costs of Rs.2,500/- to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today. (A.S.OKA, J.)