Arun S/O Bapurao Raut And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Wardha And Others

1 cao326.20.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application (CAO) No. 326 of 2020 in MCA Stamp No. 3219/2020 Arun Raut Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Wardha - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.R. Ingole, Advocate for the petitioner CORAM :MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : MARCH 04, 2020 These are the applications moved on behalf of the revisional applicants for restoration of the revision application and for condonation of delay in moving application for restoration.

2.

This is not the first occasion on which such applications are moved as record indicates that such applications were moved on behalf of the applicants and by order dated 08/11/2019, delay was condoned, restoration application was allowed subject to the the condition of removing office objections within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, failing which the applications were directed to be dismissed without reference to the Court.

3.

Despite the conditional order, the applicants failed to remove office objections within stipulated

2 cao326.20.odt period of time. This discloses an absolutely callous approach on the part of the applicant. It appears that they were not really serious about restoration of the Revision Application.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that except one objection, all other office objections were removed and that the only objection that remained to be removed was concerning filing copy of the judgment, which was now available. 5.

Be that as it may, the impression that the Court has gathered is that the revision applicants have been callous in their approach and, therefore, these applications can only be conditionally allowed. 6.

In view of above, the applications are allowed, delay is condoned and the Revision Application is restored. In the interest of justice, instead of restoring the earlier application for restoration, revision application is itself restored subject to the applicants depositing costs of Rs.10,000/- with the High Court Bar Association, within a period of two weeks from today.

JUDGE MP Deshpande