Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5046 of 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST)NO.3585 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the Applicant CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 10th October, 2007 : 10th October, 2007 : 10th October, 2007 P.C. . This is an application for condonation of delay filed by the owner of the vehicle. In view of conditional order of Assistant Registrar dated 17-6-2006, the applicant failed to remove office objections and, therefore, suffered dismissal order. 2. The applicant being poor unable to arrange for huge amount within two weeks. It was communicated to the Advocate accordingly. The Advocate who appeared on behalf of the applicant, thereafter selected as a Judge in September 2006. The 2 applicant came to know about the same only in June 2007. The applicant thereafter enquired and came to Mumbai to appoint new Advocate. After enquiry and verification of the record it was informed to the applicant about the status of the first appeal. Applicant, thereafter, has filed the present application. The applicant is now ready to remove office objections within two weeks. Considering the averments made in the application, it appears that there was no intentional delay in filing and/or taking steps in the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay as prayed is condoned. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)&(b). 3. Application is disposed off accordingly. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]