Sakharam Laxman Mundkar And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

8292.17CA+.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 945 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8292 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO.7011/2017 SAKHARAM LAXMAN MUNDKAR & ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ...

Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.R.D.Sanap, AGP for the respondent-State.

Mr.Umakant Giri, Advocate for respondent no.3. ...

AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8293 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO.7009 OF 2017 NAGORAO SAMBHAJI MUNDKAR & ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ...

Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.R.D.Sanap, AGP for the respondent-State.

Mr.Sham B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.3. ...

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 01.09.2021 PER COURT :

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGP for the respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 - acquiring body.

8292.17CA+.odt 2] The applicants are the original claimants. There is delay of 169 days caused in preferring appeal. 3] Learned counsel for the applicants - original claimants submits that there are errors about calculations in the judgment, consequently, the Reference Court has corrected the said judgment, as such, technically there is delay caused in preferring appeals.

4] Learned counsel appearing for the other-side have also not disputed this position.

5] In view of above and for the reasons stated in the applications, the applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause-B and same are disposed of accordingly. [V. K. JADHAV, J.] DDC