Dyaneshwar S/O Santoshrao Mohod v. Chief Engineer, Maharashtra Airport Authorities, Nagpur And Others

2024:BHC-NAG:375 14-CAO-79-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO. 79 OF 2024 IN CIVIL APPLICATION (F) NO. 15 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 2657 OF 2023 (Dnyaneshwar s/o Santoshrao Mohod Vs. Chief Engineer, Maharashtra Airport Authority, Nagpur & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders of directions Court'

s or Judge'

s orders.

and Registrar'

s Orders.

Shri S.B. Bangde, Counsel for the applicant/appellant. Ms H.S. Dhande, A.G.P. for the respondents/State. .....

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J.

JANUARY 11, 2024.

On 4/1/2024, the following order was passed :

"Heard for some time.

Having expressed a view that the pleadings in the application do not justify the delay, learned counsel for the applicant seeks a week's time to amend the application.

Permission is granted with a note that such request has been made upon Court expressing a view that the delay has been not satisfactorily explained.

Stand over to 11-1-2024."

2] Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the applicant has filed the present application seeking amendment in Civil Application No. 15/2024.

14-CAO-79-2024 3] However, perusal of application indicates that the applicant has not put forth a single reason as to what prevented the applicant from incorporating the proposed paragraphs. The application starts with the line "The appellant mentioned hereinabove most humbly and respectfully submits as under :-" This is followed by the proposed amendment and then concluded by prayer to allow the application.

4] The applicant not even bothered to put forth a plea that inadvertently, these paragraphs could not be incorporated in the earlier application. As stated earlier, there is not a single reason put forth by the applicant as to why the proposed amendment does not find place in the earlier application.

5] I am therefore left with no other alternative but to reject the application granting liberty to the applicant to file yet another application by disclosing reasons why the proposed amendment was not incorporated in the earlier application.

6] The application is accordingly rejected.

CIVIL APPLICATION (F) NO. 15/2024 7] Stand over one week.

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Sumit