1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Applications Nos.3951, 4010 and 4011 of 2008 In Second Appeal No.227 of 2003 (The State of Maharashtra v. Purushottam s/o Madanlal Agrawal) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri T.A. Mirza, AGP for Applicant/State. Ms H.N. Jaipurkar, Advocate, holding for Shri Sohoni, Advocate, for Respondent. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 5 th April, 2010 By these applications, the applicant seeks setting aside abatement and condonation of delay in bringing legal representatives of the respondent on record. The application, so far as it relates to respondent No.1-d, has already been dismissed. As far as remaining legal representatives are concerned, the learned counsel for those legal representatives has strong objection in entertaining these applications on the ground that the applicant has not filed any application for condonation of delay in having the abatement set aside. While the learned counsel for the respondent may be 2 technically right in insisting having another application for seeking condonation of delay in setting aside abatement, these applications sufficiently disclose as to why abatement occurred and delay is required to be condoned. In view of this, these applications are allowed, subject to applicant paying a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the costs to the proposed legal representatives of the respondent within a week. Necessary amendment be carried out in the cause title within the same time. Judge. pdl