← Library
Bombay High CourtCAF/2777/2017disposed off

The Commissioner Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik v. Shri.Suresh Sumatilal Shah And ORS.

2020-01-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice R.D. Dhanuka2 pages

ppn 1 3.caf-2777.17 wt ors.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2777 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.6927 OF 2017 The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation ..

Applicant/Appellant Vs.

Suresh Sumatilal Shah & Ors.

..

Respondents ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3063 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.6906 OF 2017 The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation ..

Applicant/Appellant Vs.

Ayodhyabai Nandlal Dhut & Ors.

..

Respondents ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3259 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.6954 OF 2017 The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation ..

Applicant/Appellant Vs.

Kalawatibai Govind Chandrate (since deceased) through her legal heirs 1.1 Rajani Ramesh Kulkarni (since deceased) through her legal heirs 1.1A Manjusha Kumar Dudhat & Ors.

..

Respondents ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3231 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.6977 OF 2017 The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation ..

Applicant/Appellant Vs.

Kisan Sakharam Govardhane & Ors.

..

Respondents

ppn 2 3.caf-2777.17 wt ors.doc --- Mr.Murlidhar L. Patil for the applicant/appellant. Mr.Sachin Gite for the respondent nos.2 to 6 in CAF/2777/2017, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in CAF/3063/2017, for Respondent Nos.4B, 4C,4D, & 6 in CAF/3225/2017 and for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in CAF/3231/2017.

Mr. Yogesh Dabke, Asst. Government Pleader for the Respondent No. 8 in CAF/2777/2017, for Respondent No.4 in CAF/3063/2017, for Respondent No.7 in CAF/3225/2017, for Respondent No.4 in CAF/3259/2017-State.

--- CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA, J.

DATE : 22nd January 2020 P.C.:

.

By these civil applications, the applicant seeks condonation of delay in filing respective First Appeals. No affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondents though served.

2.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Delay is sufficiently explained in all the civil applications. 3.

Delay is condoned. The aforesaid civil applications are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. R.D.DHANUKA, J.