1. The present application has been filed, seeking condonation of delay of 333 days occurred in filing the Appeal.

2. Heard Ms. Srushti Thula, learned advocate for the applicants, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP for opponents no.1 and 2 and Mr. Hemant Munshaw, learned advocate for opponent no.3.

3. Ms. Thula, learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the averments made in this application and has contended that because of the circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, the present Letters Patent Appeal could not be preferred within the period of limitation. Ms. Thula submitted that because of the unintentional mistake on the part of the applicant, the applicant may not suffer because of not condoning the delay. Ms. Thula has relied upon the averments made in para 2 and 3 of the application and has submitted that the applicants have been able to establish sufficient cause and therefore, this Court may condoned the delay as prayed for.

4. Per contra, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate has opposed this application. Mr. Munshaw has submitted that sufficient explanation has not been given and therefore, the delay being enormous should not be condoned by this Court.

5. No other or further submissions have been made.

6. Considering the averments made in the application, which are uncontroverted, though the delay is of 333 days, in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in order to see that the applicant may not lose his right to legitimately redress his grievance in the appeal, in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. The averments made in the application do constitute sufficient cause, which warrants condonation of delay as prayed for accordingly. The application is allowed.

7. The main matter be listed for its admission hearing on 02.09.2021.