ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2018 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 2018 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 2018 OF 2007 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.6876 OF APPEAL (ST) NO.6876 OF APPEAL (ST) NO.6876 OF 2007 2007 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. Poonam Mittal for the applicants. Mr. Pandurang Gaikwad i/by Mr. Vishwanath Talkute for respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 3rd October, 2007. : 3rd October, 2007. : 3rd October, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Affidavit of service is taken on record, in so far as the respondent No.2 is concerned. Mr. Pandurang Gaikwad, the learned counsel appeared for respondent No.1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the present first appeal by the appellant Assurance company. The matter is arising out of the accident claim. ( 2 ) Respondent No.1 is the contesting party. Considering the averments made in para 1 and 3 and as the formality of obtaining legal approval to various departments which also goes to the Regional Office and then lastly to the Head office caused, the delay. This is an administrative delay, therefore as explained. just cannot be overlooked. Even otherwise, it is in the interest of respondent No.1 also that the present appeal be considered on merit. The appellant has already deposited the decretal amount. 3. In view of this, the present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 4. The Civil Application is disposed of, accordingly. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]