WARES EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. SUNITA S SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the Order allowing respondent No. 1's application for condonation of delay. The respondent No. l filed an application for condonation of delay on 1-8-2007. Admittedly, the appeal was filed on 30-8-2007. It is obvious from the above that there could have been no explanation for the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal for the period after the application for condonation was already filed. Without noticing this discrepancy which shows that for the entire period after the application for condonation of delay was filed and till the appeal was filed, the Tribunal has condoned the delay on the ground that it is a technical mistake on the part of the applicant. There is no question of any technicality involved. A litigant is bound to explain the existence of a sufficient cause for the entire period by which the proceeding has been delayed.