Single judge allowed a civil application for condonation of delay in seeking restoration of an abated second appeal, citing sufficient cause.
Civil application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d) for condonation of delay.
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
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.528 OF 2007
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.744 OF 2002
------------------------------------:----------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
or directions and Registrar’s :
orders. :
------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
Mr A.M.Kulkarni for Mr A.A.kumbhakoni, for
the applicants.
Mr Hiranandani for Mr C.G.Gavnekar, for
the respondents.
CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J.
DATED : 01.10. 2007
P.C.:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By this civil application, the applicants
have prayed for condonation of delay in
seeking restoration of the second appeal which
came to be dismissed as abated on 14.10 2002.
The applicants have filed a separate
application for bringing heirs of the sole
deceased appellant on record. I perused the
application and more particularly paragraphs
5,6 and 7 thereof. Cause shown by the
applicants for condonation of delay, in my
opinion, is sufficient cause. Hence, this
civil application is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d). The civil
application is disposed of.
(D.B.BHOSALE,J.)
A.A.Kumbhakoni
C.G.Gavnekar
D.B.Bhosals
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court