1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.8355 of 2007 Siro Plast Ltd. Petitioner Vs. Shri Shridhan Vasant Mhasalekar Respondent Mr.D.J.Bhanage for petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Senior Counsel with Mr.S.S. Punde for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 10, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Bhanage, the learned counsel for the petitioner - company. . Rule. . Mr.Patil with Mr.Punde waives service for the respondent - plaintiff. . As the petition impugns the order rejecting the application for delay condonation in filing an appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court, the petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. . The respondent - plaintiff filed RCS No.63 of 1995 seeking a declaration that the order of 2 termination of his service passed by the petitioner - company on 12/9/1995 and the said Suit has been allowed as per the judgment and decree dated 22/9/2006. It appears that the petitioner - company made an application for the certified true copy on 3/10/2006. The certified true copy was ready on 8/10/2006 and was collected by the company’s Advocate / officer on 30/10/2006. The company filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court for the first time on 19/4/2007 and thus there was a delay of about six months in filing the appeal. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was not persuaded by the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner - company to condone the delay caused. This Court by its order dated 13/2/2008 had called upon the petitioner - company to deposit an amount of Rs.3000/- with the trial Court within two weeks and the same has been done. The lower Appellate Court is right in rejecting the company’s contentions blaming the local Advocate and in any case when the certified true copy was received on 30/10/2006, there was no reason, to satisfactorily explain as to why the company took time till 19/4/2007. However, having regards to the law laid down by the Apex Court and as has been referred to by the lower Appellate Court, in 3 the case case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Kataji [AIR 1987 SC 1353] [AIR 1987 SC 1353] [AIR 1987 SC 1353], the company’s statutory remedy of filing an appeal should not be allowed to be defeated solely because the company could not explain the delay of about four months in approaching the lower Appellate Court and such an approach would not meet the ends of justice. The company could be put to costs and in fact exemplary costs and the delay could be condoned so that its appeal is decided on merits. . Hence the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Misc. Civil Application No.56 of 2007 stands allowed subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.5000/-. The petitioner - company shall deposit the balance amount of Rs.2000/- with the lower Appellate Court within a period of two months and this total amount of Rs.5000/- is allowed to be withdrawn by the plaintiff. Appeal is directed to be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31st August 2008. (B.H.MARL