{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12357 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST.NO.26654 OF 2011 Sumanbai w/o Prabhakar Igve Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.B.N.Patill, advocate for the applicant. Mr.V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 08th December, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Heard Mr.Patil, learned Counsel for the applicant, extensively. 2 Applicant’s agricultural properties situate at village Sastur, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad was acquired. The applicant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per are. She was not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Osmanabad and moved a Reference to the Land Acquisition Officer at Osmanabad and same was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No.255/2000. After establishment of Court at Omerga, it was transferred and renumbered as L.A.R. No.595/2005. The State submitted its written statement and {2} denied the claim. The issues were framed on 25.09.2006 and owing to the absence of the applicant or her advocate, the learned Judge, by order dated 06.01.2009, dismissed the Land Acquisition Reference. 3 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the delay of 918 days caused in filing the Civil Revision Application be condoned. The judgment under challenge of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in L.A.R. No.595/2005, being without merit, be set aside. He submits that the applicant/claimant could not pay attention due to change of her residence and even the advocate did not communicate her the dates in the matter. 4 The learned Judge, as could be seen from the observations in para 12, was consciously aware of the length of the matter and the gravity involved. He virtually accommodated the applicant or her advocate from at least 2007 to 2009, in spite of the fact that the matter was 8 years old. It is not that the applicant was unaware of the pending proceedings, as has been canvassed by Mr.Patil. The application moved by Mr.Deshpande, advocate lastly on 06.01.2009, illustrates that the matter was ripe and alive to the knowledge of the applicant. The long drawn absence is unexplained. Change of residence, by itself, will not be a ground, as the law contemplate that the registered address of the {3} party will remain for the purposes of service till disposal of the lis. The contention, that the State will not be a looser, is again misplaced. The interest component has been kept in slumber if the Reference is to be entertained. The laxity shown on the part of the applicant, therefore, cannot be condoned, as the matter is not diligently attended nor the application informs sufficient grounds to condone the delay. 5 Civil Application seeking condonation of delay to prefer the Revision is dismissed. No costs. K.U.CHANDIWAL JUDGE adb/ca1235711