The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Its Exe Engineer Medium Project Division v. Ashok Hanmant Salunke And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11567 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 10204 OF 2015 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation & others ...Applicant

Versus

Ashok s/o Hanmant Salunke and others ...Respondents ...

Mr. A. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for applicant Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for R/1.

Mr. Shashibhushan Deshmukh, AGP for R/ 2 and 3. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11565 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 10199 OF 2015 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation & others ...Applicant

Versus

Venkat Laxman More and others ...Respondents Mr. A. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for applicant Mr. Shashibhushan Deshmukh, AGP for R/ 2 and 3.

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11563 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 10207 OF 2015 The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation & others ...Applicant

Versus

Ravindra Vishwanath Gaikwad and others ...Respondents ...

Mr. A. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for applicant Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for R/1.

Mr. Shashibhushan Deshmukh, AGP for R/ 2 and 3. ...

[CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] Date: 01 st March, 2018 ORDER :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Leaned counsel for applicants states that delay has caused in filing of appeals in the circumstances referred to in paragraph no. 3 of civil applications, respectively. He submits that delay has been caused in the official movement of the matter from one table to other and one

department to another. He further states that applicants have not gained any benefit from the delay caused. 3.

Learned counsel for respondents purport to resist the applications, stating no credibility be given to submissions and reasons in the applications since the contentions of the applicants have not been supported by placing anything on record.

4.

Although learned counsel for respondents submit so, have not been able to challenge veracity of claims as would be appearing under paragraph no. 3 of the civil applications.

5.

In the circumstances, it would be expedient to grant the applications.

6.

Civil applications are, accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clause (A), respectively, and are disposed of. [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] vdk