(-1-) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1055 OF 2007 Sanofi-Synthelabo (India) Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Union of India ... Respondents Mr. S.M. Sakhardande with Mr. H.G. Dharmadhikari for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Bharuchal for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED: 19TH JULY,2007 DATED: 19TH JULY,2007 DATED: 19TH JULY,2007 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. Heard forthwith. . The contention of the Petitioner is that the cause shown for the delay would amount to sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is pointed out that the Petitioner has shifted his office and that is how filing of the appeal was delayed. We have heard the learned counsel for the Respondents. . The Apex Court has time and again now reiterated that the parties should not be denied access to justice unless their conduct is such that it will not be possible to condone the delay. In the instant case, delay is of five months. An (-2-) explanation is given which amounts to sufficient cause. In the light of that, impugned order is set aside. Delay condoned. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal on merits. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)