1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C.A.F. No. 2437 OF 2009 (In FA St.No.13929/09) Girish s/o Jankiprasad Mishra v. Smt. Premila wd/o Kewalram Surkar r & ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.R. Srivastava Advocate for the Appellant/applicant. Mr. V.N. Morande Advocate for Res. 1 to 3. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 19 th NOVEMBER,_2009. Heard Mr.Srivasava Advocate for the applicant and Mr.Morande, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5. None appeared for respondent nos.6 and 7- the Insurance Company though served. Mr.Srivastava submits that there is no likelihood of Insurance Company coming forward before this Court for the reasons best known to it. That apart, since everybody is served, and since I am satisfied from reading of the application for condonation of delay that there are good and sufficient reasons to condone the 2 delay, I allow this application in terms of its prayer clause (i). F.A. St.No. 13929/09 Mr.Morande, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that because of inter se dispute amongst the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle, the claimants could not get benefit till date from 2001, which position is not disputed by Mr.Srivastava. Mr.Srivastava submits that the Insurance Company made a false statement that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid licence and therefore there was a breach of policy and it is only on that ground the Insurance Company has been exonerated from its liability. Mr.Morande submits that ironically the same Insurance Company has compensated the owner of the vehicle for the damage to the matador. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, I find that this is a fit case to dispose of the appeal at the motion hearing, since the claimants are without any relief. Hence, issue notice for final disposal at the admission stage with clear warning to Insurance Company that no adjournment will be granted on the appointed date. Mr.Morande waives service for respondents 1 to 5. Issue fresh notice to respondents 6 and 7 3 returnable on 8.12.2009. In addition, service by RPAD is permitted. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE /TA/