1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4777 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 9670 OF 2006 The Divisional Officer, M.I.D.C., Nashik ..Applicant (Orig. Resp. no. 3) VERSUS Noor Mohammad Chindha Deshmukh and others ..Respondents (No. 1 Orig.Claimant Nos. 2 and 3 Orig. Resp.Nos. 2 & 3) ..... Shri S.S.Dande, advocate for the applicant Shri A.B.Kale, advocate for respondent no.1 Respondent no.3 served absent Application dismissed against resp.no.2 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Heard respective counsel for the parties. 2 2 The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 183 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 4.4.2005 rendered by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule, in L.A.R.No. 64 of 1997, allowing the Land Acquisition Reference and granting compensation of Rs.1,87,500/- per hectare and interest thereon to the applicant herein. 3 The applicant submits that the applicant he applied for certified copies on 5.4.2005 and received the same on 8.8.2005. Thereafter time was consumed to obtain the sanction from Head Office at Mumbai for filing First Appeal, which resulted into delay of 183 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal and the applicant requested to condone the said delay in the interest of justice. 4 The applicant further submits that the said delay is not willful, deliberate or intentional and, therefore, the same be condoned. 5 Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits 3 and same be rejected. 6 Considering the averments in the application and also considering the rival submissions, it appears that the applicant has stated the reasons for causing the delay in filing the accompanying First Appeal in para nos. 3, 6 and 8 of the application properly and satisfactorily. It also appears that the said delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not willful, deliberate or intentional and apparently it is not inordinate also. The applicant, therefore, prayed to allow the application and condone the delay. 7 The applicant, therefore, prayed to allow the application and condone the delay and submitted that an opportunity is required to be given to the applicant to prosecute the accompanying First Appeal on merits and no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents since they would get opportunity to contest the same on merits if present application is allowed. 8 In the circumstances, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly same stands allowed in terms of 4 prayer clause ‘A’ thereof and delay of 183 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned. The accompanying First Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca4777.06