Dayaram S/O Mangru Bawane v. Keshao S/O Ghanshyam Lanjewar

1 cas335.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.335 OF 2018 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.880 OF 2018 (Dayaram s/o Mangru Bawane ..vs.. Keshao s/o Ghanshyam Lanjewar) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Bhendarkar, Counsel for the appellant, Shri S.B. Bawanthade, Counsel h/f. Shri A.A. Dhawas, Counsel for the respondent.

CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 03-12-2018 This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring appeal.

2.

On the last date of hearing Shri A.A. Dhawas, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent was granted time to file an affidavit-in-reply. 3.

The affidavit-in-reply is not filed. The learned Counsel holding for Shri A.A. Dhawas states that he has gone to some institute in Nagpur for delivering lecture and is, therefore, not in a position to attend the Court. 4.

The priority for the Counsel is expected to be Court appearances and not lectures. Be that as it may, the averments in the application seeking condonation of delay have not been rebutted. Even otherwise, the litigant cannot be made to suffer due to the oversight or

2 cas335.18 even negligence of the counsel.

5.

The delay is condoned.

6.

List the appeal on 05-12-2018 for admission.

JUDGE adgokar