1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 744 OF 2009 The Estate Manager Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd., Laxmiwadi Mala, Laxmiwadi Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar .. APPELLANT VERSUS 1 Ramrao Pundlik Naikwade age 61 years, occ. agri., r/o Malwadi, Kokamthan, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 Rukhminibai Appasaheb Deshmukh (dead) through LRs 2A Appasaheb s/o Jaywant Deshmukh age 67 years, occ. agri. 2B Dinkar s/o Appasaheb Deshmukh age 43 years, occ. agri. 2C Ashok s/o Appasaheb Deshmukh age 36 years, occ. agri. Respondent nos. 2A to 2C r/o Malwadi, Post Kokanthan, Behind Jangali maharaj Ashram Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS 2 Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Shinde, Advocate holding for Mr. V.H. Dighe, Advocate for respondent no. 1. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 1 st FEBRUARY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Admit. 3 First appeal tendered by the appellant herein before the court of Additional District Judge, Kopargaon was presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation. As such, application bearing Misc. Application no. 10/1998 came to be tendered seeking condonation of delay of 178 days occurred in presenting the appeal. The first appellate court, however, found that the reasons stated by the appellant seeking condonation of delay are not justifiable and delay has not been substantiated by the appellant by stating proper reasons. As such, the application came to be rejected by virtue of 3 order dt. 23-9-2004. Rejection of application seeking condonation of delay is subject matter of the instant appeal. 4 After hearing the parties, in my opinion, the substantial question of law that arises for consideration of the appeal is : . Whether there is sufficient reason stated by the appellant within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay in presenting the appeal ? 5 Respondent no. 1 / original plaintiff instituted suit claiming decree of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the defendant being Regular Civil Suit no. 450/1988. It is not necessary to go into the factual details of the controversy involved in the matter. Suit presented by the plaintiff / respondent herein was decreed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Kopargaon by judgment and decree dt.4-2-1998. With a view to present appeal against the decree, the appellant / original defendant no. 1 presented an application for securing certified copies on 15-4-1998. Presentation of application by 4 defendant no. 1 for securing certified copies is itself beyond prescribed period of limitation and, as such, time required for securing the copy of judgment and decree cannot be excluded. It is contended by defendant that there was procedural requirement for seeking sanction of higher officials in respect of presentation of appeal and some time was lost in securing appropriate directions. It is contended by the appellant that delay occurred is unconditional and the defendant corporation is not unduly benefited because of occurrence of the delay. Contentions raised by the appellant have been seriously controverted by the respondents herein. 6 I have perused the judgment and order passed by the first appellate court. I am of the view that delay that has occurred in presenting the appeal is not intentional and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate court ought to have taken a liberal view of the matter. Always an endeavour shall be made as far as possible to decide the controversy in the matter after hearing the parties on merits of the matter and the doors of the justice 5 shall not be closed by exhibiting technical bars including delay which is not unduly unreasonable. The inconvenience caused to the other side can be compensated in terms of cost. In the circumstances enumerated above, I am of the view that the first appellate court has taken unduly restricted view of the matter. Application tendered by the appellant ought to have been considered positively. Appeal is thus allowed. Order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kopargaon on 23-9-2009 in Misc. Application no. 10/1998 is quashed and set aside. Delay occurred in presenting the appeal before the first appellate court is condoned, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the appellant – corporation within a period of six weeks from today. Cost shall be deposited before the first appellate court and on deposit of the amount, respondent / original plaintiff shall be entitled to withdraw the same. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa744.09.odt