Meenakshi Satish Parpelli v. Satish Pochayya Parepelli

( 1 ) ca392.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2017 IN FCAST/37818/2016 WITH CA/393/2017 IN FCAST/37818/2016 MEENAKSHI SATISH PARPELLI

VERSUS

SATISH POCHAYYA PAREPELLI Mr.R.O. Awasarmol, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.M.B. Ubale, Advocate for the respondent.

CORAM : S.S.SHINDE & S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

DATED :

05.03.2018 P.C. :- 1.

The respondent is served. This application is for condonation of delay of 164 days. The Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. He submits that the delay has not been properly explained by the appellant. Therefore, he submits that the application for condonation of delay may be rejected.

2.

We have considered the statement of learned Counsel appearing for the parties. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, the application is allowed. The same stands disposed of. Delay is filing the Family Court Appeal is condoned. The Registry to register the appeal.

( 2 ) ca392.17 3.

Call for record and proceedings.

4.

The Registry shall ensure that record and proceedings are received on or before 26.03.2018. List the Family Court Appeal on 27.03.2018.

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.S.SHINDE,J.] /2018/ 18/ snk MAR ca392.17