← Library
Bombay High CourtCAF/2892/2017admittedallwdgrantedrule absolute

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Thr. Executive Engineer, Washim v. Gayabai Atmaram Jadhav (Sangita Bhaskar Dhere) And Others

2018-09-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

caf2892.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2892/2017 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.10990/2016 V.I.D.C. through its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Washim ..vs.. Gayabai Atmaram Jadhav (Sangita Bhaskar Dhere) and ors. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. V. Dahat, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. V. N. Patre, Advocate for non applicant no.1. Mr. M. A. Kadu, A.G.P. for non applicant nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Pursuant to the notices issued on this application, Mr. Patre, Advocate appears for non applicant no.1-Gayabai and Mr. Kadu, A.G.P. appears for non applicant nos. 2 and 3.

There is a delay of 368 days. The application is affirmed by the Executive Engineer Mr. Jayant Shinde for and on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Patre, though orally objected for condonation of delay, statements made on affidavit remained uncontroverted since no reply is field on behalf of non applicant no.1. Learned A.G.P. has no objection for condonation of delay. After hearing the parties and after having perused the application on affidavit, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for condonation of delay. Hence, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned. Office to register the appeal.

caf2892.17.odt First Appeal Stamp No. 10990/2016 Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

ADMIT. Call for the record and proceedings.

Mr. Patre, Advocate waives notice for respondent no.1 and Mr. Kadu, A.G.P. waives notice for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

JUDGE kahale