The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad considered an application seeking condonation of delay in filing a first appeal. The respondent appeared, while the other respondent was absent. The court found sufficient cause for the delay and allowed the application.
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal is granted.
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.
CA16262.2015.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16262 OF 2015 IN
FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 35954 OF 2015
MIDC, through its Divisional Officer, Division Office, Latur.
Applicant..
VERSUS
Satyanarayan Pannalalji Ladda & Anr.
Respondents..
Mr S. S. Dande, Advocate for the applicant Respondent No. 1 served. Mr B. A. Shinde, AGP for respondent/State
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16264 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 36007 OF 2015
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
DATE : 11TH MARCH, 2016.
PER COURT:
. In spite of service of notice on respondent No. 1, none appears on his behalf.
2
CA16262.2015.odt
satisfied that there is sufficient cause mentioned in the application for
delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned.
[ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ] [ S. S. SHINDE, J. ]
sgp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal warrants condonation.
MIDC, through its Divisional Officer, Division Office, Latur
Satyanarayan Pannalalji Ladda & Anr.
S. S. Shinde
V. L. Achliya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
