abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 951 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1213 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant V/s Natha Kondaji Kumker, deceased through Baban Natha Kumker & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.R. Patil, A.G.P. for the applicant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. This application is made for setting aside the abatement of the appeal against respondent no.3 and for condonation of delay in making the application. 2. Respondent no.3 died on 30th March 2007. The application for setting aside the abatement and condonation of delay has been made on 2nd February 2008. According to the learned A.G.P., the government was not aware of the death of respondent no.3 and therefore the - 2 - application for bringing the heirs of respondent no.3 could not be made in time. This is so stated in paragraph 5 of the application. 3. In my view, the statement that the government was not aware of the death is obviously incorrect. Exhibit-A to the application shows that the death of respondent no.3 was recorded by the government itself under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 on 11th April 2007. Thus, the government was aware of the death on 11th April 2007. Learned A.G.P. however submits that the officer appointed under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is different than the revenue officer and the present matter relates to the revenue officers who were responsible for prosecuting the appeal which arises out of acquisition proceedings. Even if this submission is accepted, the record shows that revenue officers effected mutation entry no.413 on 1st September 2007, recording the death of respondent no.3 and entering the names of his heirs. In the revenue records the names of the heirs of respondent no.3 were entered by the very revenue officers on 1st September 2007 itself. The revenue officers were therefore aware of the death, in any event, on 1st September 2007. Despite this, the application for bringing the heirs of respondent no.3 was not made within 90 days even from the date of - 3 - knowledge of the death of respondent no.3 and the application for setting aside the abatement has also not been made within 2 months of the abatement. In my view, the reason given for the delay is not correct, if not false. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained. There is no reason for condonation of delay and setting aside the abatement. 4. In the circumstances, the civil application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)