ORAL JUDGMENT : - Heard. Rule returnable forthwith consent of both parties.

2. The petitioner is the original defendant from Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 1997 decided by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satana, District Nashik on October 23, 2002. It was an ex parte decree passed against the present petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said ex parte decree, the petitioners preferred an appeal. However, the said appeal was delayed by 529 days. Therefore, Civil Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 29 of 2004 was taken out by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The said application is dismissed by the IIIrd Ad -hoc Additional District Judge, Malegaon by judgment and order dated July 16, 2005, since according to the First Appellate Court there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay.

3. Both counsel have admitted that the impugned judgment was passed by First Appellate Court on the basis of averments of the respective parties as reflected in the delay condonation application and reply to the said delay condonation application. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no opportunity to lead oral evidence was given to the petitioner. He further submitted that the Court has also not passed the order under Order XIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to prove a particular fact involved in the lay condonation application by filing an affidavit. Thus, the grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that unless and until the First Appellate Court had passed an order under Order XIX, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code lowing the party to lead the evidence by way of affidavit, the Court could not have proceeded with the disposal of the matter on merits insofar as the condonation of delay is concerned.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent also fairly conceded that there was no oral evidence recorded by the Court and equally there was no order passed by the First Appellate Court directing the parties to lead the evidence by way of affidavit. He further submitted that such course was not insisted upon by the petitioner.

5. The delay condonation application is a miscellaneous judicial proceeding and it is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led by the parties before the Court. The regular procedure is to record the evidence of the parties by way of examination -in -chief and cross -examination. However, such procedure can be dispensed with by the Court if the Court desires to exercise powers under Order XIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In that eventuality the Court has to pass an order to that effect. Order XIX, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is to the following effect:

"1. Power to order any point to be proved by affidavit. - Any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the Court thinks reasonable. Provided that where it appears to the Court that either party bona fide desires the production of a witness for cross -examination, and that such witness can be produced, an order shall not be made authorising the evidence of such witness to be given by affidavit."

6. Thus, the Court can read the evidence led by way of the affidavit after having recorded the sufficient reasons for accepting such affidavits and, if no such order is passed by the Court, the Court is under obligation to follow the regular procedure of recording the evidence by way of examination -in -chief and cross -examination. In the present matter, it is further noticed that none of the parties have filed pursis informing the Court that the evidence is closed by either side. Thus, it is transpired that the matter is disposed of simply on the basis of the pleadings of the parties without recording of evidence in the Court and/or obtaining evidence as per Order XIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the absence of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document