The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 330-day delay to restore a先前 dismissed Civil Revision Application. The court held that the case was not a fit one for condoning such a delay.
Application for condonation of delay and restoration of CRA dismissed.
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
1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CA NO.128/2010 in CA ST.NO.27554/2009 IN CRA NO. 1142/1996.
Office notes, office Memoranda of
Coram,appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
CORAM : P.R.BORKAR, J.
DATE : 19th July, 2010.
1) Shri Gopalrao Borikar, party-in-person present.2) This is an application for condonation
of delay of 330 days, caused in filing
an application seeking restoration of
the CRA No.1142/1996 which was dismissed
in default by order dated 8.1.2009.
3) The CRA is filed against the order dated
31.8.1996 passed below Exhibit-22 in
Special Civil Suit No.69/1995 in which
the issue involved was whether the trial
court has jurisdiction to entertain and
try the suit and the learned trial Judge
by order dated 31.8.1996 came to the
conclusion that it has jurisdiction to
entertain and try the suit. The
original suit is of 1995 and almost
fifteen years have been passed after the
institution of the suit. The reason
assigned for condonation of delay is
that the present applicant was not aware
2
of the decision of the dismissal of CRA
by order dated 8.1.2009.
4) After considering the circumstances, I
am of the considered view that this is
not a fit case for condoning the delay
and restoring the CRA. Hence the
application is dismissed.
JUDGE
bdv/ca128.10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing an application for condonation of delay (resurrection of an earlier application) was sufficient to warrant permitting restoration.
Shri Gopalrao Borikar
P.R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court