1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8972 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 17105 OF 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tilak Nagar, Latur, through Authorised Signatory ...Applicant VERSUS Shivaji Waghji Panchal and ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri V.R. Mundada, advocate for the applicant Shri A.V. Patil, advocate for respondent no.1 Shri A.N. Gaddime, advocate for respondent no.2 Respondent no.3 served-absent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7 th February, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri V.R. Mundada, advocate for the applicant, Shri 2 A.V. Patil, advocate for respondent no.1 and Shri A.N. Gaddime, advocate for respondent no.2. None appears for respondent no.3, although served. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 526 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal. 3 The applicant/appellant i.e. Insurance Company has raised a specific plea that the original file was misplaced, wherein the certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was kept and the said misplacement of file ultimately resulted in causing delay of 526 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal. 4 It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the entire amount under the award i.e. Rs. 1,52,363/- has been deposited by the applicant/appellant before the Executing Court. 5 Shri A.V. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 opposed the present application vehemently relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.etc.etc. Vs Shri Vithu Kalya Govari and Ors.etc.etc., reported in 2008 (4) ALL MR 856 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh and ors., reported in 2010 (6) ALL MR 480. 6 Considering the rival submissions and considering the afore said judgments carefully, it appears that the applicant has put forth the ground of misplacement of file, which consequently resulted into delay in filing the accompanying First Appeal, and since the facts and circumstances in the present case and the facts and circumstances in the cases cited by the learned counsel for respondent no.1 apparently differ from each other, the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal deserves to be condoned. 7 In the circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed, but simultaneously, the respondent no.1 is also required to be compensated, and therefore, reasonable cost is required to be imposed upon the applicant while allowing the present application. 8 In the result, the present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ and delay of 526 days caused in filing the First Appeal stands condoned, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- 4 by the applicant to respondent no.1 within two weeks and the accompanying appeal be registered and numbered and present application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca8972.10