1 wp 1906.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1906 OF 2011 Narayan Bhimrao Sonwane .. Petitioner Versus Rukhminibai Sampat Hingure Died through L.R.s 1. Parvatabai Vishnu Poghade and ors. .. Respondents Shri M. K. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri V. G. Shelke, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner assails an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad thereby allowing the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 2. The present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a revision against the order of the Additional Collector, Jalna dated 19.03.2005. There was delay of 4 years 11 months and 14 days. 2 wp 1906.11 As such, the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for condonation of delay. The same is allowed. Hence the present petition. 3. Shri M. K. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority has not given any reasonings nor has recorded his satisfaction while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 even did not file an affidavit supporting the application for condonation of delay. The mother had died in February 2009. The order was passed by the Additional Collector on 19.03.2005. There was no impediment for the mother to file the revision from 2005 to February 2009 i. e. till the time of her death. No explanation is given in this regard. It is further contended by the learned counsel that, present respondent No. 1 was major and residing in the same village. No cause is also mentioned as to what prevented her from filing the revision. According to the learned counsel, there is no cause muchless sufficient cause shown by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not filing the revision within the stipulated period. The order passed is erroneous. 3 wp 1906.11 4. Shri Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the mother was looking after the litigation. The mother committed suicide being harassed by the present petitioner. The present respondent No. 2 at the relevant time when the judgment was pronounced was minor. As the mother was looking after the matter, present respondents were not aware of the legal proceedings and when they became aware immediately steps were taken to file a revision. The learned counsel submits that the present respondents would not have been benefited by causing delay. The delay was not intentional. Shri Deshmukh, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others reported in AIR 1987 S. C. 1353. 5. The application for condonation of delay has to be liberally construed. The fact that, the respondent No. 1 is married is not disputed. Even when the judgment was passed by the Additional Collector that time the respondent No. 2 was merely 18 years of age. As such, it cannot be disbelieved that the preent respondents were not aware of the proceedings which were pending between the present petitioner and their mother. Each 4 wp 1906.11 and every days delay is not required to be explained. Moreover, the order impugned was passed against the mother of the present respondents. As such, the respondents would not have been benefited by filing revision late. It is trite law that when technical considerations and cause for substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause for substantial justice shall be sub served. 6. Taking into account the above conspectus of the matter, I do not think the matter requires interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner would have an opportunity to contest the matter on its merits. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11