1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.O. NO. 1175/09 AND M.C.A. ST. NO. 18751/09 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 11071/09 Satyanarayan V. Dhande & others .vs. Sakharam Jairam Dhande & others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATE : 18 th FEBRUARY, 2010. Heard Mr. A.A. Gupta, learned Advocate for applicants and Mr. S.N. Chichbankar, learned Advocate holding for Mr. Bhattad, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. A.A. Gupta, learned Advocate for applicants, submits that the delay of 55 days caused in filing appeal is purely unintentional. In view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate and considering the reasons in the application, which are good and sufficient, the delay is condoned. The application stands allowed. M.C.A. ST. NO. 18751/09 : Heard Mr. A.A. Gupta, learned Advocate for 2 applicants and Mr. S.N. Chichbankar, learned Advocate holding for Mr. Bhattad, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. A.A. Gupta, learned Advocate for applicants, submits that because of the non-removal of the office objections within stipulated period, the appeal was dismissed in default. Mr. Gupta submits that he will remove office objections within a period of one week. He further submits that he has raised substantial grounds in the second appeal and there is hope of success in the appeal. In view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate, the application is allowed on depositing costs of Rs.750/- in favour of High Court Legal Services Sub- Committee, Nagpur. Judge J.