1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1529 OF 2008 Smt.Shobha Suresh Devkar. ..Petitioner. Versus Smt.Vimal Jagdas Hedulkar and 5 others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.N.R. Bubna, Advocate i/b. Mr.Ashutosh Gole, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.SagarJoshi, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 3A to 3D and 4 to 6. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATED : 6TH MAY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 1999 came to be decided against the petitioner – orig. plaintiff by order dated 23rd March, 2007. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Appeal against the said order. As there was delay of 49 days in preferring Appeal, Misc.Civil Application No.69 of 2007 came to be preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The said application came to be rejected by the learned District Judge. Being aggrieved by the said order, this Writ Petition is preferred. 2 3. The order passed in Regular Civil Suit is dated 23rd March, 2007. It is an admitted fact that an application for certified copy came to be preferred on behalf of the petitioner on 25th April, 2007. The certified copies were received on 27th April, 2007. The limitation for filing appeal expired on 24.2.2007. However, appeal came to be filed by the petitioner on 11th June, 2007. All these facts are admitted. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he fell sick i.e. he got jaundice for which he was taking treatment from the doctor. Reliance is placed on a medical certificate which shows that the petitioner was taking treatment for jaundice from 29.4.207 to 9.6.2007. The learned District Judge observed that from the medical certificate, it cannot be said that the applicant was ill during the period from the date of decision till the application for certified copy was preferred on 25.4.2007. He observed that the application for certified copy was preferred only after the period of limitation had expired. It is further observed by the District Judge that in the application there is no explanation as to why no application for certified copy was made till 32 days. On perusal of the order of the learned District Judge, it appears that the Court was influenced by the fact that the period from 23rd March, 2007 to 25th April,2007 had not been explained. The Court observed that even if the period after 25th April, 2007 has been explained, the prior period from 23rd March, 2007 to 25th April, 2007 had not been explained. Hence, the learned District Judge observed that no sufficient reason was made out for condonation of delay and he 3 rejected the said application. 5. So far as the period after 32 days is concerned, explanation has been given by the petitioner. Hence, we are only concerned with the earlier period of 32 days i.e. from the date of the order till an application for certified coy was preferred on behalf of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case of Shrimant Jadhavrao Anandrao Pawar and others Vs. Dilip Balvantrao Pawar and another reported in (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 593 has observed that as far as the period which fell within the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal is concerned, question of explaining that period does not arise and only the period after the limitation expires has to be explained. 6. In the present case, it is seen that as far as the period after 23rd April, 2007 is concerned, it has been satisfactorily explained, it is also supported by medical certificate. In view of the above decision, I am of the opinion that the District Judge was in error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Hence, the order of the District Judge cannot be sustained. The said order is set-aside 7. In view of the above, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal be heard on merits. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]