1. This Second Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2018 passed in Civil M.A. No. 64/2018. By the impugned order, the first Appellate Court decline to condone the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal and rejected the application. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this Second Appeal.

2. While admitting the appeal, the following substantial questions of law are framed:

(a) Whether the impugned order passed is legally sustainable in law.

(b)Whether the reasons and findings recorded by the first appellate court in refusing to condone the delay, are legal proper and sustainable in law.

3. Learned counsel representing the appellant assailed the reasons and findings recorded by the first appellate court with contention that the order passed is perverse and not sustainable in law. By referring the cause assigned for condoning the delay, the learned counsel submits that the first appellate court has totally ignored the reasons assigned for condoning the delay. It is contended that the reasons assigned in rejecting the application are totally perverse and not sustainable in law. So also the first appellate Court ignored the settle principles of law to be borne in mind while dealing with condonation of delay.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the first appellate court and submits that the reasons assigned to condone the delay cannot be termed as sufficient cause to condone the delay. He submits that only cause assigned to condone the delay is the transfer of Chief Officer of Municipal Council. He further submits that even before the trial court, the defendants failed to defend the case. Although, the trial court adjourned the case for more than one year to cross examine the witnesses for plaintiff the defendants and their advocate failed to appear and cross examine the witnesses. He further submits that in appeal, no evidence was adduced to support the cause assigned for condonation of delay.

5. The reasons mentioned in para 8 and 9 of the application seeking condonation of delay reads as under:-

“8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court applicant approach to this Hon'ble Court by filing the regular civil appeal. But for filing the present appeal delay is caused. The trial court has passed the impugned judgment and decree on 26/09/2017. The then chief officer of applicant council transfer from the Municipal council Paithan to Municipal Council Kalamnuri and the present chief officer has resume duty by the order of the Maharashtra Arbitration Tribunal in the month of October, 2017. After joining the duty the present chief officer has came to the knowledge about the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court as the caveat petition has filed by the respondent on 27.11.2017. After the knowledge the further steps for filing the present appeal taken by the chief officer. The application for seeking certified copies of judgment and decree filed on 14.12.2017 and the same has received on 06.01.2018. After receipt of the same the necessary steps for filing the present first appeal is initiated but some time has consume to approach to this Hon'ble Court by filing present appeal. The applicant is a local body and for filing the appeal it is necessary to take the permission from the body and after the obtaining the necessary permission, applicant filed present appeal by challenging the judgment and order. The delay for filing the present appeal of 106 days is not intentional, deliberate on the parts of the applicant. The delay which is caused for filing present appeal needs to be condoned.

9. In view of the statements made herein above, applicant hopes to succeed in the same if delay of 106 days is not condoned in filing present appeal then the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and hardship on the contrary no hardship would caused to the respondent. The balance of convenience heavily tilts in fa