1 wp144-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.144 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.793 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.144 OF 2010 Anant Laxman Kalap-Patil .. Petitioner versus Kashiram Jijaji Khanvilkar & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Suresh More for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Kamble for respondent Nos.2 to 14. Mr.S.N.Bhosle, A.G.P for respondent No.15. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 25th July 2011. P.C.: . Heard. The appeal that was preferred by the present petition under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 to challenge an order dated 12th September 2007 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, was barred by time and to be precise, by 93 days. An application for condonation of delay was made, which came to be dismissed. The petitioner had prior to the dismissal pointed out that in the application through inadvertence and by sheer mistake, the advocate inserted the name of his wife as being ill and, therefore, the delay be condoned. However, the petitioner's wife had expired 2 wp144-10.doc in the year 2004. It was his daughter-in-law who was unwell. The advocate by mistake mentioned the name of the wife. Infact, the daughter-in-law was ill and she delivered a child at Bombay. She was also suffering from osteoporosis. Since there was no one to look after the daughter-in-law and his son being working, the petitioner was required to go to Bombay to attend his ailing daughter-in-law. It was that reason which was sought to be mentioned by way of amendment application, but, even the amendment has been rejected. Resultantly, the application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed. 2 The petitioner sought to quash and set aside this order by filing an appeal in the Court of District Judge. The District Judge has come to a conclusion that Civil Misc. Application No.72 of 2008 itself was not maintainable. Resultantly, this writ petition had to be filed. 3 After hearing both sides, in my view, it is not necessary to enter into any larger controversy as to whether an application seeking condonation of delay could have been amended and if at all it could have been amended, whether the same was required to be dismissed by any reasoned order or not. Further, it is not necessary to examine the issue as to whether an appeal lies against the order refusing to condone the delay. The refusal to 3 wp144-10.doc condone the delay, so also the refusal to permit the amendment to the application for condonation of delay, both should be looked at not in hyper technical way, but, in the light of the ultimate outcome and the impact on the proceedings. If the delay is not condoned, resultantly, the application stands dismissed. Therefore, even if the District Judge committed an error or not, is not necessary to be decided in these proceedings. 4 After having perused the petition and the annexures thereto, so also considering the objections that have been raised to the application seeking condonation of delay, I am of the view that in the peculiar facts of this case, the delay deserves to be condoned. It is not as if the petitioner had made a deliberate false statement. The petitioner had given certain instructions to the advocate, but, possibly, the ultimate application which was made, having been drafted in English language and filed by an advocate, the petitioner was unable to understand the contents thereof. His attempt to correct the statements therein should not have been visited with such serious consequences. If there was sufficient cause shown otherwise and the case not being of deliberate negligence, total inaction or lack of bonafides, then, the application could have been granted by imposing costs. Precisely, that is the course which I desire to adopt, as I am satisfied that sufficient cause is shown for the delay of 93 days in filing the appeal under Section 72 of the 4 wp144-10.doc Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 5 As a result of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. However, the petitioner to pay costs quantified at Rs.1500/- to respondent Nos.2 to 14. The costs be paid within a period of two weeks from today. On production of proof of payment of the costs, the Joint Charity Commissioner to register the subject proceedings as appeal under section 72 challenging the Assistant Charity Commissioner's order dated 12th September 2007 and proceed to decide it on merits and in accordance with law. 6 In view of the disposal of the writ petition, civil application does not survive and the same is rejected. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)