IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3492 OF 2008 (FOR RESTORATION) IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.6590 OF 1997 1.Dhanpal Ganpati Gujar (Shah) & Ors. ..... Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents ====== Mr.Ashutosh Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicants. Mr.T.S.Ingale,Advocate for respondent no.3. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 17 th June 2009. PC :- 1. This Civil Application is taken our for setting aside the order of dismissal of the appeal for non-removal of office objections. There is delay of approximately six years in filing the application. Mr.Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and their advocates through inadvertence and oversight did not notice the order dated 4th October, 2005 passed by the Additional Registrar as regards removal of office objections and the appeal came to be dismissed. 2. The application is opposed by respondent no.3-the acquiring body by filing affidavit-in-reply. It contends that there is no case made out by the applicants for condonation of delay. 3. The appeal arises out of the order dated 1st November, 1996 which is a common order on two land references, i.e. Land Reference No.4 of 1986 and Land Reference No.2 of 1986. The present appeal arises out of Land Reference No.4 of 1986. Mr.Kulkarni, points out that the claimants in Land Reference No.2 of 1986 had preferred an appeal to this court being First Appeal No.1136 of 1997 which was partly allowed by the order dated 4th February, 2005 and the compensation payable to the claimant in that case, enhanced. In that circumstance, I am inclined to allow the Civil Application for restoration. Respondent no.3, however, will have to be compensated by way of costs. The Civil Application is allowed, on the applicants paying costs quantified at Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One Thousand only) to respondent no.3 within a period of one week from today. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota,J.)