FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9379 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 17194 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant Mr. A.N. Meharkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01/10/2010 PER COURT : 1. The applicant has filed application for condonation of delay. The ground agitated is that the learned Advocate of the applicant had initially drafted Writ Petition and sent for verification, same was also verified and same was also verified and given to the learned Advocate. But the learned Advocate did not file the Writ Petition The copy of verified memo is also filed on record, because of these factors the appeal could not be filed and delay is caused. 2. Shri Mehearkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents strenuously resists the application on the ground that the delay is not properly explained and relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in a case of “ State of Maharashtra & others V/s. Shri Vithus Kalya Govari & others, reported in 2008(4) All MR 856”. 3. The applicant has filed on record the memo of Writ Petition duly verified. It is settled law that because of the fault of Advocate litigant should not suffer. The Judgment relied by Shri Meharkar is not applicable to the present case, as the said Judgment deals with delay caused due to administrative reasons. Taking into account the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned and Civil Application is allowed. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE SDM*9379.10 CA