IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 279 OF 2011 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 235 OF 2011 COMMUNIDADE OF MAPUSA THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY MR. ANTONIO BRAGANZA ... Applicant Versus SMT. PRABHAVATI PRABHAKAR PAROB AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. T. George John, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 24th June, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Valmiki Menezes,learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. T. George John, learned Advocate for the respondent no.1. None appears on behalf of respondent no. 2 though served. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 296 days in filing Second Appeal against an order dated 28.12.2009 passed by the District Judge-I, Mapusa in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.89/2009 by which District Judge refused to condone the delay in filing First Appeal. 3. The applicant herein initially filed Writ Petition bearing No.285/2010 challenging the said order. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Shyam Sunder Sarma Vs. Pannalal Jaiswal, AIR 2005 SC 226, this Court dismissed the writ petition holding that Second Appeal against the impugned order was maintainable. It is the case of the applicant that thereafter applicant sought certified copies of the relevant documents which was required to be filed in Second Appeal which took some time and ultimately on 18.1.2011, the Second Appeal alongwith present application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. 4. According to Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the applicant there is neither any gross negligence nor inaction on the part of the applicant in filing Second Appeal and initially the applicant on legal advice had filed Writ petition which was held not maintainable and thereafter some time was taken in getting certified copies of the documents which are required to be filed in Second Appeal; therefore the time consumed in filing the second appeal deserves to be condoned. 5. Mr. T. George John, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 upon placing reliance upon the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Nivruti G. Ahire vs. State of Maharashtra and ors,2007(4) ALL MR 347, submitted that applicant has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. According to learned Counsel, the attorney of the Communidade is himself an Advocate and therefore it is difficult to accept the case of the applicant. Learned Counsel further submitted that time taken for getting certified copies cannot be considered and therefore no case is made out by the learned Counsel for the applicant to condone the delay. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondent and having perused the record and judgment relied upon by the respondent, I am of the considered opinion that applicant has been able to make out sufficient cause. The fact remains that initially writ petition was filed within the limitation period. It is on the basis of the Judgment in the case of Shyam Sunder,that on 27.10.2010, this Court held that Writ Petition is not maintainable and that Second Appeal was maintainable against the impugned order. Record further discloses that applicant thereafter took some time in obtaining certified copies of the documents which are required to be filed in Second Appeal. It is pertinent to note that to file writ petition it is not necesary file certified copies of all the documents and he can rely upon the ordinary copy unless directed by the Court. The ratio laid down in the decision of Nivruti G. Ahire(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. There is neither inaction nor gross negligence on the part of the applicant in filing Second Appeal. Ordinarily delay has to be condoned liberally as held by the Apex Court time and again in a catena of decisions. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that delay is not intentional and the application deserves to be granted by awarding costs in favour of the respondent no.1. 8. Application is allowed and delay is condoned subject to applicant paying costs of Rs.1000/- to the respondent no.1 within a period of two weeks. 9. The application stands disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn