1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.O.NO.120 OF 2010 IN M.C.A.ST.NO.554/2010 IN Rej.L.P.A.No.590/2009 in W.P.NO.1274/1992 (D) Deorao Gopal Thakre (dead) through L.Rs. Smt.Manjulabai w/o Deorao Thakare and ors. ..vs.. Mah.STate Handloom Corporation Ltd. and anr. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.P.D.MegheAdv. for the applicant. None for the respondents. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED : 17th February, 2010. This civil application is taken out for condonation of delay of 59 days in filing an application for restoration of L.P.A.St.No.1099/2009 (Rejected Rej.LPA St. No. 590/2009). The notice of the present application is not required to be given to the respondents as the Letters Patent Appeal was rejected even before the same was numbered. Mr.Meghe, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the office had listed the matter for removal of the office objection for not impleading certain persons as parties to it. According to the applicant, those persons, 2 though parties to the original proceedings, were not required to be impleaded to the application for restoration. Therefore, he had filed a civil application for dispensing with office objection on 7th of October, 2009 and had obtained circulation in the week commencing 12th of October, 2009. Before any orders could be passed on the civil application, office dismissed the L.P.A. on 16th of November, 2009 for non-removal of office objection. Therefore, the applicant was required to file civil application for restoration for which there is delay of 59 days. In the additional affidavit filed in support of the application, the applicant claims that as the civil application for dispensing with the office objection was not appearing on the board, an enquiry was made in the office about the same when it was learnt that the L.P.A. had been rejected by the office for non-removal of office objection. Thereafter, the present application was filed. In my opinion, the appellant has made out the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hence, the application is allowed. Office to number the application for restoration and list the same on board in usual course. JUDGE. chute 3