1 39 ca.9637.25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 39 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9637 OF 2025 IN FAST/23534/2025 AMAR ASHOK KARALE VERSUS DHANESH MANIKCHAND GUGALE AND ANR ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Tejas Sanjay Kotkar. Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shrikrishna R. Bodade. ... CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 22nd June, 2026. P.C.: 1 This is an application for condonation of delay of 289 days caused in filing the first appeal. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the application. 3 The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that more than Rs.12,00,000/- were deposited, which are withdrawn. Therefore, there cannot be financial crisis for filing the appeal. He, therefore, submitted to reject the application, as there is no sufficient ground to condone the delay. 4 Perused the application. No doubt, there is a ground raised in the application of financial crisis, however, considering the period of delay of 289 days and the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M. D. A. Chaudhary Vs. Kartar Chand and Ors., MANU/SC/0877/2025, for deciding the lis finally on merits, the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 2 39 ca.9637.25.odt 5 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay stands condoned. The application stands allowed in the interest of justice. Appeal be registered. 6 It is made clear that in case the amount of compensation is enhanced, the claimants shall not be entitled for the amount of interest for the delayed period. Appeal : 7 Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 3rd August, 2026. Mr. S. R. Bodade, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.2. 8 The learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave to serve respondent No.1 by private mode. Leave granted. In addition to regular mode of service, private service, as is permissible in law, is permitted. 9 Call for record and proceedings. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga