1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5379/2003 M/s Prakash Kathane Associates Architect ...Versus... Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Hinganghat and others ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri S.A. Radke, Adv. for applicant] [Shri Anup Dhore, Adv. for respdt. Nos.1 & 3] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 09.04.2009 This is an application for condonation of delay in applying for restoration of first appeal that was dismissed for non-compliance of the objections taken by the office. First Appeal was filed in the year 1998. There is no reply filed to this application for condonation of delay of 23 months. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 prays for time to file reply to this application. Request is rejected as this application is pending since July, 2003. 2 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 23 months in filing application for restoration is condoned. Civil Application stands disposed of. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.926/2006 Heard. There is no reply to this application. Request made by learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 for filing reply to this application is rejected, since this application is pending since July, 2003 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Matter is restored to file. Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of. FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.8549/1998 (Rej. F.A. No.153/2000) Learned Counsel for appellant submits that for want of service on respondent No.2, the appeal that was filed in the year 1998 was dismissed. He further submits that even now 3 address of respondent No.2 is not known to the appellant and he therefore requests that he should be allowed to apply for substitute service. In view of the fact that there is no material at present to allow substitute service, it is necessary for the appellant to find out the correct address of respondent No.2. The appellant is, therefore, granted time till 30.6.2009 to find out the correct address of respondent No.2. After supply of correct address of respondent No.2 issue notice on Civil Application No.4727/1998 so also on First Appeal St. No.8549/1998 returnable on 29.07.2009. Special bailiff is allowed. JUDGE ssw