1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.147 OF 2010. (Wahiduisa Begum w/o Sirajul Hasan Vs. The State of Mah. and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.KM Nagarkar, Adv. for petitioner; Mr.SV Kurundkar, Addl.GP for State; Mr.Sham B.Patil, Adv. for Resp.No.5. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 16 th November, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) Rejection of application to condone delay in application below Exh.1 in R.J.E. No.27/2008 was questioned before the learned District Judge by Misc. Civil Appeal No.7/2010. The learned District Judge by his order below Exhibit-1, held that such Misc. Civil Appeal is not maintainable and consequently the revision. 3) The factual matrix illustrated that RCS No.67/2002 was moved by Dr.Sadiya w/o Ahmedullah and her daughters against the revenue authorities for declaration of title to the land and recovery of possession thereof, it was moved through General Power of Attorney - Babarao 2 Dhanba Patil. The matter could not be pursued by the said plaintiff or her power of attorney and consequently, it was dismissed on 30th August, 2006 4) It is apparent that the petitioner was not a party to RCS No.67/2002. She claims that she has share in the land as a legal heir of deceased Siddi Habbas Khan. If this is so, the petitioner herein has again an independent cause of action to prosecute the rights. 5) It has transpired in the evidence that the applicant/petitioner was conscious of the proceedings before the revenue authorities, but did not appear and prosecute the matter even after death of Siddi Habbas Khan. No sufficient grounds have been illustrated by the applicant, as has been rightly observed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Biloli in his order dated 17.3.2010. 6) In this scenario of the matter, I do not find any illegality or error on the part of the learned Judge. Civil Revision Application lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/