Amrapali Raju Maske And ANR v. Subhash Bhanudasrao Kale And ORS

{1} CA 11615 OF 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1001 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11615 OF 2011 IN FAST/23981/2011 AMRAPALI RAJU MASKE AND ANR

VERSUS

SUBHASH BHANUDASRAO KALE AD ORS ...

Advocate for Applicants : Adv.A.N.Ansari Advocate for Respondent : Shri V.A.Bagal Patil Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri A.S.Usmanpurkar ...

CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.

DATE: 6th March, 2019 PER COURT:- Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Delay of 161 days has occurred in filing the present appeal by the original claimants.

Shri A.S.Usmanpurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company has strongly opposed for condoning the delay stating that the reasons as are assigned are insufÏcient to condone the delay.

Shri V.A.Bagal Patil, learned Counsel has also opposed for condoning the delay on the same grounds. He has supported the contentions raised by Shri Usmanpurkar.

{2} CA 11615 OF 2011 After perusal of contents of the application, I am, however, convinced that the delay has been sufÏciently explained. I am, therefore, inclined to allow the application. Hence, the following order is passed.

ORDER

I) Application is allowed.

II) Delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. III) Application for condonation of delay stands disposed of.

IV) Appeal be registered in accordance with law.

V) After registration of appeal, issue notice to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri V.A.Bagal Patil, learned Counsel waives service of notice for respondent No.1. Shri A.S.Usmanpurkar, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent No.2. Service complete.

VI) List the appeal for further consideration on 02.05.2019.

VII) Call Record and Proceeding.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE SPT