:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5168 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 5168 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 5168 OF 2005 Sudhir Yashwant Patil ..Petitioner versus Smt. Tarabai Anant Patil & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Pankaj Das i/b. Mr. A. Parulekar for the Petitioner. Mr. Ketan Choudhari for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 4 and 5. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, setting aside mutation entries in his favour in respect of Survey No. 90 and Survey No. 28. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Additional Commissioner ought not to have rejected the petitioner’s revision but ought to have seen that the petitioner has agitated a valid point in the revision to the effect that the Authority below had allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 1 without any application for condonation of delay. There is no merit in this contention. :2: 2. Though it is normal that an application for condonation of delay must be preferred and allowed before the appeal is entertained, in the present case, the mutation entries in question were recorded in favour of the petitioner even though there was no Sale Deed or any other document showing the transfer of the properties in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, the mutation entries were recorded without any notice to the respondents herein. The respondents apparently filed an appeal on coming to know of the mutation entries. This is not a fit case for interferring with the said order at the instance of the petitioner. 3. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 in respect of mutation entry of survey No. 28, Hissa No. 9. There may be some substance in this point. However, the petition as against the said respondent has been dismissed by this court six months ago and no steps have been taken in that regard. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. :3: (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)