Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)          This group of Misc. Application Nos.206/2010, 207/2010, 208/2010, 209/2010, 210/2010, 211/2010, 212/2010, 213/2010 and 214/2010 filed in respective Appeal Nos.398/2010, 399/2010, 400/2010, 401/2010, 402/2010, 403/2010, 404/2010, 405/2010 and 406/2010,  for condonation of delay stand disposed of by common order since they involved identical facts and common questions of law.

(2)          We heard both sides.  Opposite Party Respondent relevantly opposed these applications for condonation of delay.

(3)          It is alleged that there is a delay of 15 days in filing these appeals and therefore, these applications for condonation of delay are required to be made.  To justify the delay, it is submitted on behalf of Applicant/appellant that he is senior citizen of 75 years old, a retired person and he had difficulty for travelling from one place to another.  Further, he makes reference to his poor economic condition.  In this background while filing the appeal, he had to organize necessary finances to take legal advice and then to file appeal and in this process there is delay of 15 days in filing this appeal.

(4)          It is the contention of Shri Prabhavalkar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties/Respondents that this delay should be counted from the date of filing of fresh affidavit, i.e. from today.  Therefore, according to him there is delay of 181 days. 

(5)          We are unable to accept such contention.  Affidavit is to be filed in support proof of the facts stated in Delay Condonation application.  Therefore, on affidavit cannot be relied upon for the reason of counting limitation.  Filing of the affidavit will not change the period of limitation, i.e. period of delay since the application is already moved.  Today, applicant has filed fresh affidavit in support of his application for condonation of delay and thereby affirmed the facts stated in the application and further affirming that earlier affidavit which is declined by the notary was in fact sworn before the said notary.  At this stage we would not go into the controversy as to whether the disputed affidavit was in fact sworn before the notary or not, since fresh affidavit is filed by the Applicants/Appellant in support of delay condonation application.

(6)          Normally, the party is not benefited by filing appeal at a later stage.   It is desirable to give opportunity to the party to contest the matter on merit, particularly when the delay is short and it is neither intentional nor malafide.  Therefore, we find that the Applicant/appellant in all these matters have satisfactorily explained the delay and holding accordingly, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

     (i)       Misc. Application Nos.206/2010, 207/2010, 208/2010, 209/2010, 210/2010, 211/2010, 212/2010, 213/2010 and 214/2010 filed in respective Appeal Nos.398/2010, 399/2010, 400/2010, 401/2010, 402/2010, 403/2010, 404/2010, 405/2010 and 406/2010, for condonation of delay  stand allowed.

    (ii)       Delay in all these appeals stands condoned.

  (iii)       No order as to costs.

  (iv)       As per request made by Ld.Counsel appeared for the Respondent matter is adjourned beyond six weeks and now all appeals are adjourned for hearing on admission to 10/01/2011.