1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 391 OF 2009 IN CAO NO. 465/2009 IN MCA (Rest.) 931/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3921 OF 2009 (Smt. Lalita wd/o Ankush Tandekar vs. Municipal Council, Bhandra through CO & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. SEPTEMBER 16, 2009. Heard Shri Duvvuri, learned counsel for the appellant. The prayer for condonation of delay made on affidavit has been granted by the learned Single Judge and Writ Petition dismissed in default has been restored. Shri Duvvuri, learned counsel contends that the respondents have not given just and sufficient reasons and according to him, there are absolutely no reasons for condonation of delay. He wants to rely upon certain judgments to support his contention. We find that the application for condonation of delay adopts contents of revision filed under Chapter VII, Rule 23 of Bombay High Court Appellate Side, Rules, 1960. In it the petitioners/ applicants have stated that writ petition was filed on 4.4.2005 and was listed for removal of office objections before the Additional Registrar and it was not noticed by the learned counsel, 2 therefore, the objections were not removed and as the matter went unattended, its dismissal in default was also not noticed. In para 3, it has been mentioned that the new Chief Officer of Municipal Council contacted the advocate and thereafter in January 2009 search was made and the fact of dismissal came to knowledge. The learned Single Judge has after considering these facts condoned the delay and writ petition has been restored for its consideration on merits. In view of the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The same is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.