1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 16. CA/5945/2007 In SA/417/2006 WITH CA/4824/2006 In SA/417/2006 --------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.S.Halkude, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.Milind Patil, Adv., for respondent. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 6th July, 2009 ... P.C.:- 1. Heard both the Counsel. In the matter of specific performance of contract, the decree is subject of challenge in the Second Appeal. Appeal is admitted. There is delay of 95 days for filing the cross objection in the Second Appeal. 2. Though several contentions are raised by Mr.Patil, Counsel, for the appellant about non deposit of stipulated amount within the period 2 as indicated by the learned Court in the operative part of the order, however, that exercise need not be gone into at this stage as there is word against word of making such stipulated deposit but the fact remains, the rights, if any, accrued to the original plaintiff, by virtue of the present appeal and also to seek to challenge some part of the order under challenge should not be foreclosed on some technicality of delay of 95 days. Even otherwise, this delay in filing of cross objection will not tantamount to depriving the appellant plaintiff of any accrued rights. Consequently, the application (CA No.5945/2007) seeking to condone the delay is allowed. S.O. to 21st August, 2009, for admitting the cross objection. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/ca5945-07