Sau. Manisha Shrikant Ingole v. Smt. Annapurna Raghuji Chandekar And Others

(1) 911cra18.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 18 OF 2019 Manisha Shrikant Ingole. ..vr. ..Annapurna Raghuji Chandekr and ors --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.M.Darekar, Advocate for applicant Mr. V.M.Gadkari, Advocate for non-applicants CORAM :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 23/06/2023 1] The revision questions the order dated 10.7.2018 condoning the delay of 9 months and 12 days in challenging the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2016 passed in M.J.C. NO. 158/2015 by imposing a costs of Rs. 1000/-.

2] Mr. Darekar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are no reasons for explaining the delay and therefore, the application ought not to have been allowed.

3] Mr. Gadkari, learned counsel for nonapplicant nos. 1 to 4 submits that delay is properly explained as the respondents were not served personally, but are claimed to have been served by paper publication through a local newspaper which was never read by the non-applicant nos.1 to 4.

(2) 911cra18.19 5] None appears for non-applicant no.5, though served.

6] The service being by paper publication and it having not been brought on record that the non-applicant nos. 1 to 4 are sub-scribing and receiving that newspaper on account of their residence at a remote village and considering the quantum of delay, in view of what has been held in Esha Bhattacharjee vrs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The revision is therefore dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Rvjalit Digitally sign byRAJESH VASANTRAO JALIT Location: