1811cao327.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CAO NO.327 OF 2011 IN MCA ST.NO.2661 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.83 OF 1977 (D) Thakurjee Deosthan Sihora Vs. Laxman Kachru Dahat (Dead) ........................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................ CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: 18. NOVEMBER, 2011. Heard Shri Dhabe, Advocate for the applicants in civil application, Shri Paliwal, Advocate for the original appellant in second appeal is opposing the prayer for condonation of delay. Perused the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act as supported by affidavit. Applicants maintain that their Advocate did not notice the matter which was listed for final hearing and, therefore, could not appear when second appeal was finally heard and allowed. Shri Paliwal, Advocate points out that the matter was already on board since long and the name of the Counsel was appearing in cause list. He states that in this situation there is no substance in grounds being .....2/- 1811cao327.11.odt 2 pressed into service for condonation of delay. He also states that the second appeal was pending since 1977 and arose out a civil suit instituted in 1971. After hearing the respective Counsel, it is apparent that the reasons given cannot be labled as false or malafide. As the applicants have substantiated their grounds, the fact that the matter is old, cannot be a reason to refuse condonation of delay. As I do not find any malafides on the part of the applicants, delay is condoned. The office is directed to register MCA and place it for further consideration on 25.11.2011. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-