← Library
Bombay High CourtCA/6588/2019admittedallowedgrantedrule absolute

Manjusha Ganpati Gurme v. Vijaykumar Karbhari Golhar And Other

2019-08-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik3 pages

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6588 OF 2019 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO. 13399 OF 2019 Manjusha d/o Ganpati Gurme Applicant

Versus

Vijaykumar s/o Karbhari Golhar & others Respondents Mr. R.S. Banik, Advocate holding for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent no. 1. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6589 OF 2019 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO. 13395 OF 2019 Manjusha d/o Ganpati Gurme Applicant

Versus

Navnath Eknath Shekade & others Respondents Mr. R.S. Banik, Advocate holding for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent no. 1. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6590 OF 2019 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO. 13392 OF 2019 Manjusha d/o Ganpati Gurme Applicant

Versus

Namdeo Bhagwan Funde & others Respondents

{2} Mr. R.S. Banik, Advocate holding for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent no. 1. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6591 OF 2019 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO. 13387 OF 2019 Manjusha d/o Ganpati Gurme Applicant

Versus

Vinayak Ambadas Khandke & others Respondents Mr. R.S. Banik, Advocate holding for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent no. 1. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6592 OF 2019 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO. 13384 OF 2019 Manjusha d/o Ganpati Gurme Applicant

Versus

Ajay Nanasaheb Jeve & others Respondents Mr. R.S. Banik, Advocate holding for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent no. 1. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : 16th August, 2019.

PER COURT :

1.

These are the application for condonation of delay of 65 days

{3} in filing the civil revision applications.

2.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 vehemently oppose the applications. None appears for respondent no. 2 though duly served.

3.

However, for the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing civil revision application deserves to be condoned. Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'. ( M.S. KARNIK, J. ) dyb/