1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1736 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1496 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1738 OF 2010 IN CROSS OBJECTIN (ST.) NO. 18634 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1739 OF 2010 IN CROSS OBJECTIN (ST.) NO. 18621 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1740 OF 2010 IN CROSS OBJECTIN (ST.) NO. 18629 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1741 OF 2010 IN CROSS OBJECTIN (ST.) NO. 18633 OF 2007 Bhikhu Ganu Pavgi. ... ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. . . .etc.. ... ... Respondent. Mr. G. K. Maurya with Mr. Arvind Purohit i/by Smt. P. H. Potnis for the Applicant. Smt. S. V. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 9TH JUNE, 2010. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Delay in filing of cross objection is stated to be about 2 years and 159 days. 2 According to the applicant, the relief claimed in the cross objection is regarding payment of interest to the applicant on the enhanced amount of compensation. That could be claimed at any stage of the proceedings. To support the submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. v/s State of Gujarat, (1991) 1 SCC 262. 3. Considering the fact that the relief claimed in the cross objection is only limited to grant of interest, we have no hesitation in condoning the delay in filing the cross objection, which in our opinion would subserve the interest of justice. Accordingly, the applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Sd/- Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)