IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 537 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 2150 OF 2009 SMT. SITABAI SHANTARAM TALAWNEKAR AND 4 ORS., ... Applicants Versus CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate with Mr. N. Vaze, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs. A. A. Agni, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 24th July, 2009 P.C. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has filed reply. Copy is served to the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant. LPA filed in the Court is delayed by about seven days. By this application, filed by the applicant, condonation of about seven days delay in filing of the LPA is sought to be condoned. 2. In reply to this application, it has been stated that the LPA is not maintainable and, therefore, no case for extension of time to file appeal is established. It is, therefore, prayed that the application be rejected. 3. Extension of time, is a matter governed by Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The Court has to consider and appreciate the explanation tendered by the applicant seeking condonation of delay. The length of the delay is not material. In fact, it is the explanation tendered by the party approaching the Court seeking condonation of delay is important. 4. In the case at hand and more specifically in Para 2 of the application, grounds raised are in respect of miscalculation of some dates pertaining to facts of delivery of certified copy of the impugned Judgment. 5. At this stage, this Court really is not concerned with the maintainability of the LPA. We are satisfied that no malafides have been alleged in the reply. Delay cannot be said to be intentional. We are inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of about seven days in filing the LPA stands condoned. 6. MCA is accordingly allowed and disposed off. Let the LPA come up for admission on Tuesday i.e. 28.07.2009. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. U. D. SALVI, J. arp/*