1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION A. NO.69 OF 2009. IN ACOST NO.14709 OF 2008. SANTOSH SHYAMRAO MOHOKAR & 7 OTHERS. VS. PANDURANG SAKHARAM SATAV & OTHERS. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Gopal Mishra, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri N. L. Jaiswal H/F Mr. Ghare, Advocate for Respondent no. 5 & 6. Shri S. S. Shirsat, Advocate for Respondents no.1,4 & 6. Shri PD Kothari, AGP for State. Coram : S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. Dated : 21st July, 2009. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for the respondents, and learned AGP for State Respondent. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondents strongly oppose the application. They also seek time to file reply saying that delay is not property explained. 3. The circumstances of the case are such that the applicants had preferred the Writ Petition before this Court on 6-9-2007, which was pending till 2-5-2008. It is informed by the learned Counsel for the appellants that under bonafide impression that the 2 Writ Petition would lie and appeal may not be maintainable, he had preferred the said writ petition. 4. Considering the totality of the circumstances, though there is delay of about 359 days, & there is no reply from Respondents, same has to be condoned in the interest of justice. However, the respondents also need to be compensated with costs of Rs.300/- each and Respondent no.1, 4 & 6 for other Counsel for the respondents No.5 & 6. 5. List the appeal filed by the appellant for admission on 3-8-2009. 6. Respondents waive service. 7. The application disposed of JUDGE /Muley/