The Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Minor Irrigation Project Div. Osmanabad v. Sandip Ramkrushna Shinde And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2427 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 11474 OF 2019 The Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Minor Irrigation Project Division, Osmanabad ..Applicant

Versus

Namdeo Ramkrushna Shinde and ors..

..Respondents Mr A.D. Gadekar, Advocate for applicant Mr L.C. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents no.2 and 3 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2431 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.12371 OF 2019 The Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Minor Irrigation Project Division, Osmanabad ..Applicant

Versus

Vitthal Ramkrushna Shinde and ors.

..Respondents Mr A.D. Gadekar, Advocate for applicant Mr L.C. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents no.2 and 3 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2433 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.12366 OF 2019 The Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Minor Irrigation Project Division, Osmanabad ..Applicant

Versus

Sandip Ramkrushna Shinde and ors.

..Respondents Mr A.D. Gadekar, Advocate for applicant Mr L.C. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents no.2 and 3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2429 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 12361 OF 2019 The Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Minor Irrigation Project Division, Osmanabad ..Applicant

Versus

Gopal Gundopant Shinde and ors.

..Respondents Mr A.D. Gadekar, Advocate for applicant Mr L.C. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents no.2 and 3 CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.

DATE : 3rd July 2021 PER COURT :

1.

These are applications for condonation of delay moved by the applicant/acquiring body for condonation of delay. 2.

Heard Mr Gadekar, learned Advocate for applicant, Mr L.C. Patil, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr Wattamwar, learned A.G.P. for respondents no.2 and 3.

3.

There seems to be delay of 752 and 760 days, respectively in preferring the appeals.

4.

Mr L.C. Patil, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 strongly opposed to condone the delay. According to Mr Patil, no sound reasons are assigned for condonation of delay by the applicant.

5.

For the reasons stated in the applications for condonation of delay and to meet the ends of justice, the delay needs to be condoned to decide the appeals on merits. With this, I conclude and proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

(i) Civil Applications for condonation of delay are hereby allowed; (ii) The appeals be registered after due scrutiny as per the procedure and thereafter it be numbered and place before the Court for admission. 6.

Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly. ( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) vvr