1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.2127 OF 2002 Shri Nana Krishna Pawar. ..Applicant. V/s. Shrimati Babutai Dagadu More & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Rajesh Sawant for applicant. Mr.M.J.Patil for respondent No.1,3 and 4. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : APRIL 5, 2006. DATE : APRIL 5, 2006. DATE : APRIL 5, 2006. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. I see no reason to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against the discretionary order passed by the lower court condoning delay. This is so because cogent reasons are assigned by the lower court to show indulgence in favour of the respondents while condoning the delay. Indeed, the delay was long delay but as explanation offered by the respondent, the lower court has shown indulgence in favour of the respondents. No case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. Hence dismissed. 2 3. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that paper book circulated before the court is incomplete. The page following portion of paragraph-8 which ought to be page-26 is missing. The same was produced at the hearing by the counsel for the petitioner. The complete copy of the Judgment as produced by the counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. The above reasons are recorded on the basis of said documents made available to me.