FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL ALPPLICATION NO.287 OF 2003 IN SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO.46071 OF 2001 ------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. -------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D.A. Sonwalkar, for the Appellant Mr. Rohan S. Darandale, for Respondents. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . By the above Civil Application the Applicant prays for condonation of delay of one year and 288 days in filing the Appeal. The reasons for the delay are mentioned in paras.2 and 3 of the Civil Application. The sum and substance of the reasons are that the Applicant/Appellant was pursuing the remedy of review against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 2. The above application is opposed by the respondent by filing affidavit in reply wherein it is stated that the reasons mentioned in the application do not constitute sufficient cause. It is further mentioned that though the Applicant was pursuing the remedy by way of review petition the said review petition was also dismissed for non-prosecution and thereafter the application for restoration moved after one year was also rejected. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the reasons mentioned in the Civil Application though the said Review Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution the fact that the applicant had filed the review application cannot be disputed. May be the applicant was pursuing a wrong remedy in the process of which some time has been lost by the applicant in filing the present Appeal. Considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in considering an application for condonation of delay wherein the Apex Court has held that a party should not be thrown out on technical grounds, but should be allowed to prosecute its remedy on merits. A case for for condonation of delay is made out. The Civil Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). However, the interest of justice requires that the respondent is compensated for the inconvenience caused to him on account of the said delay. The Applicant, therefore, to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent within six weeks from date. The said costs is made a condition precedent. In the event the said costs are not paid the benefit of this order would not enure to the applicant and consequently the above Civil Application would stand dismissed. Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (R.M. SAVANT, J.)