ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. IT APPEARS THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, WHICH WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS THE APPELLANT BEFORE THAT COURT WAS NOT ABLE TO SATISFY THE COURT REGARDING SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL AFTER DELAY OF 250 DAYS. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER WHEN THE HIGH COURT WAS MOVED IN WRIT, THE SAME HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HENCE, THIS APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE. 3. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT WAS A FIT CASE WHERE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDONED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE. 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED, IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE SET ASIDE, DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE IS CONDONED AND HE IS DIRECTED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PARTIES. LET THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL BE EXPEDITED. 5. THIS ORDER, HOWEVER, WILL BE SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF RS 10,000 BY THE APPELLANT TO THE RESPONDENTS BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE DEMAND DRAFT IN THE NAME OF RESPONDENT 5, PAYABLE ON A SCHEDULED BANK AT BULDHANA WITHIN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA WITHIN FOUR WEEKS FROM TODAY; FAILING WHICH THIS PETITION SHALL STAND DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE BENCH.