1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application (CAO) No.786 of 2010 In Misc. Civil Application (Revision) St.No.8183 of 2010 In Civil Application St.No.8720 of 2009 In Letters Patent Appeal St.No.8719 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.4059 of 2008 (D) (Muzttar Khan Zamir Khan v. The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Buldhana Division, Buldhana, and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri B.M. Khan, Advocate for Applicant. Shri Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondents. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 7 th October, 2010 Civil Application No.786 of 2010 : The applicant has filed Civil Application Stamp No.8720 of 2009, which is a revision application challenging the order dated 13-7-2009 passed by the Registrar (Judicial) dismissing the matter in default for non-removal of office objections. There is a delay of 252 days caused in filing such revision application. 2 Hence, Civil Application No.786 of 2010 has been filed for condonation of delay. The reason mentioned is that the order was passed on 13-7-2009 and the counsel for the applicant was not present. The office objections was to be removed on or before 27-7-2009. When the learned counsel for the applicant moved the application for circulation of the Letters Patent Appeal, he came to know that the matter has been dismissed in default for non-removal of office objections in view of the order dated 13-7-2009 . Hence, the application challenging the order of the Registrar (Judicial) has been filed. The delay was caused on account of the fact that the counsel did not appear on 13-7-2009 and he was not aware of the conditional order. This application is opposed by the respondents by filing the reply. The main contention is that the exact date on which the circulation was sought, has not been mentioned in the application. As a result, the application is not bona fide. After going through the reasons stated in the application and after considering the reply filed by the respondents, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Hence, the application is allowed and the delay of 252 days caused in filing the application for restoration is condoned. Judge pdl