Radhakishan Shrirangrao Yadav v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8768 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 9290 OF 2021 Radhakishan s/o Shrirangrao Yadav Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. K. B. Jadhav, advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. R. Yadav Lonikar, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. V. C. Solshe, advocate for Respondent No.3. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8776 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 9196 OF 2021 Halimabee Babakar Chause and others Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. K. B. Jadhav, advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. R. Yadav Lonikar, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Ram B. Deshpande, advocate for Respondent No.3. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8784 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 8420 OF 2021 Sk. Hasan Sk. Husain Chause Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents

{2} Mr. K. B. Jadhav, advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. R. Yadav Lonikar, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mrs. S. G. Chincholkar, advocate for Respondent No.3. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8783 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 8423 OF 2021 Tukaram Narayan Yadav & others Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. K. B. Jadhav, advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. R. Yadav Lonikar, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. S. C. Arora, advocate for Respondent No.3. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8785 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 8418 OF 2021 Ashok Madhukarrao Yadav Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. K. B. Jadhav, advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. R. Yadav Lonikar, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. S. G. Bhalerao, advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE J.

DATE : 08th September, 2022.

PC :

Heard rival submissions.

The respective applicants, in all these Civil

{3} Applications, are seeking condonation of delay of 4135 days caused in fling the appeals. According to them, the delay has been caused due to their poor fnancial condition.

The learned AGP as well as learned Counsel for acquiring body strongly opposed the applications on the ground that there is no proper explanation given by the applicants about the delay.

However, considering the statutory right of the applicants to defend and for the reasons stated in the applications, delay of 4135 days stands condoned subject to the condition that the applicants shall not claim any interest for the aforesaid period of delay.

The appeals be placed for admission after removal of offce objections, if any.

All these applications stand disposed of accordingly. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE adb