1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3527 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) 20802 NO.556 OF 2009 IN APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2003 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Applicant Vs. Smt. Sunita Mohan Harnekar .... Respondents & Ors. Mr. Deepak Sharma i/by Mr. Dinesh B. Gupta, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A.B. Tajane, Advocate for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 16th April, 2010 P.C. 1. This Civil Application is taken out for condonation of delay of 131 days in filing the appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the Civil Application. The application shows that the impugned judgment and order was passed on 31st December 2008. The applicant applied for certified copy of the same on 6th January 2009, which came to be received by it on 17th January 2009. The appeal proceedings came to be filed on 18th June 2009. In order to explain this delay, the applicant has to state the following at 2 paragraph 2 of the application. The delay has occurred due to transmission of papers “ from one officer to the other as also from one department to another as the Appellant (Org. Opp. Party no.1) being a public sector undertaking, some time was found necessary at every stage to scrutinize and examine the papers thoroughly with the bonafide intention of arriving at the best alternative available in the circumstances prevailing at that material period of time and consultations were held with various authorities including advocates to explore the possibility of honoring the verdict of the Hon ble Trial Court, but ’ since the viability went against the honoring of the verdict the present appeal was preferred and filed as last recourse available to avoid any departmental scrutiny to that extent of oversight or undue favoritism or haste in abiding with the impugned judgment.” 3. Mr. Tajane, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the averments quoted above are general statements made without any particulars and hence it must be held that there is no case made out by the applicant for condonation of delay. As against this, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being the public sector company has its own difficulty in functioning at the speed expected by law and since the applicant had good case on merit, it should get an opportunity of having the dispute decided in the appeal. Though the averments in the application leave much to be desired, I am inclined to allow the Civil Application so as to afford an opportunity to the applicant. The respondents can be compensation by costs. The Civil 3 Application is allowed on condition that the applicant pays costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to the respondents No. 1 to 4 in one set. Since respondent no. 5 has not appeared after service of the Civil Application, no costs are awarded against him. Costs is to be paid within four weeks from today. If the costs are not paid within the time granted, the Civil Application to stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court. Office to number the appeal and place the same on board, in due course. 4. At the request of Mr. Tajane, learned counsel for respondents, it is directed that the cheque of costs be issued in the name of respondent no.1, for and on behalf of all the respondents. 5. Perusal of the application shows that the cause title thereof is defective in as much as it describes age of respondent no.3 as `1 year, ’ whereas as per the title of the original proceedings shows `46 years old. ’ Respondent no.4 is described as dead, this respondent is very much present in the Court today. The applicant is directed to get the cause title corrected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)