The Bombay High Court heard an application for condonation of delay in a civil appeal. The respondent was absent. The court held the four-day delay was satisfactorily explained and condoned it.
Delay of four days condoned. Civil application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1312 OF 2003.
IN
SECOND APPEAL ST.NO.3572 OF 2001
Shri Vijay Rajaram Pimple : Applicant.
versus
Shri.Chandrakant V.Saitavadekar : Respondent.
Mr.Ashok Tajne i/by Mr.G.S.Godbole for the
Applicant.
CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.
DATED : 18th August 2005.
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the
Applicant. This is an application for
condonation of delay. Respondent is served.
Nobody is present for the respondent. No reply
is filed. Delay is of 4 days. It is
satisfactorily explained. Delay is condoned.
Civil Application is disposed of. Put up the
matter for admission after two weeks.
2
[D.G.DESHPANDE]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of four days in filing the civil application was satisfactorily explained.
Shri Vijay Rajaram Pimple
Shri Chandrakant V.Saitavadekar
D.G.DESHPANDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court