1 wp5974.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5974 OF 2010 Abdul Wahab Shaha s/o Guljar Shaha, Age: Major, Occ: Business, & Ors. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS The Tahasildar, Tahsil Office, Aurangabad & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. J.V. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.B. Choudhary, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1&2. Mr. Y.B. Pathan, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE,J. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2011 PER COURT : The petitioners have approached this Court contending that the appellate Court has erred in dismissing their appeal which was filed after a delay of 103 days. The suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that the 2 wp5974.10 trial Court has no jurisdiction because of the bar under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Wakf Act, 1995. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners approached the appellate Court. The main contention of the petitioners in the suit was that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to issue any notices to them on the ground that they were encroachers when there was no dispute between them and the Wakf Board. 2. The reason mentioned in the application for condoning the delay is that there were several appellants who were scattered in various places and were not available for filing proceedings before the Court. In the circumstances, it was prayed that the delay be condoned. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the appellate Court has erred in not condoning the delay. The petitioners had mentioned in the application that they had a reasonable and sufficient cause for not 3 wp5974.10 approaching the Court expeditiously and within the stipulated period. In my opinion, the order passed by the appellate Court in refusing to condone the delay deserves to be set aside. In the case of Ashishkant Prabookant Sen and others vs. Jagoba s/o Dashrath Jibhkate and others reported in [2010(2) Mh.L.J.338], in similar circumstances, the delay has been condoned by this Court. 4. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the delay is condoned. It is made clear that merely because the delay is condoned, the issue as to whether the suit is maintainable before the Civil Court, has not been decided in this matter. The petition is disposed of. [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] sut/Apr11