The High Court of Bombay, on the application of the applicants, found sufficient cause for condoning the delay and set aside the default order that had dismissed their second appeal.
Second appeal restoration order dated 31.3.2006 was set aside and application made absolute.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2007
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.17 OF 2005
-----------------------------------:-------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
or directions and Registrar’s :
orders. :
-----------------------------------:-------------------------------------
Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for the applicants.
CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J.
DATED: 3RD OCTOBER, 2007
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants. None for the respondents, though
served.
2. By this application, the applicants have
prayed for restoration of the second appeal
which came to be dismissed for default by the
order dated 31.3.2006. I perused the
application so also reply affidavit filed by the
respondents. In my opinion, the cause shown by
the applicants is sufficient cause to condone
the delay and set aside the order dated
31.3.2006. Hence this application is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).
Civil application is disposed of.
(D.B.BHOSALE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the cause shown by the applicants for condonation of delay is sufficient to set aside the default order dismissing the second appeal.
Applicants
Respondents
D.B. Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court