1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3311 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3311 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Patil for petitioner and Advocate Mr. Bora for Respondent. 2. Perused order dated 7th December, 2010 and 13th January, 2011 passed by this Court in this very matter. On 7th December, 2010 this Court did not find anything wrong with the order passed by District Judge-2, Parbhani condoning delay in entertaining appeal filed by respondent municipal council. However, notice was issued only to find out costs payable by municipal council to petitioner. On 13th January, 2011 this Court found that said order needed a recall. Accordingly, that order has been recalled and petition has been restored to its earlier position i.e. entire controversy is kept open for consideration. This Court also issued 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3311 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. "Rule" in the matter. 3. Both learned counsel request that the matter be heard finally right now. 4. In understanding the controversy, this Court has spent sufficient time and hence matter is heard finally. The municipal council pointed out that order by trial Court protecting alleged unauthorised structure of petitioner came to its knowledge belatedly. Shri Patil contends that reasons given in para 5 and 6 of the petition, under section 5 of Limitation Act (Exhibit-1) in M.A. No.120 of 2008 are unacceptable. He further states that the Advocate who represented municipal council was himself aware of all the developments. 5. I find that the municipal council came up with ground that said judgment and decree 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3311 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. was not in its knowledge. At the same it has also pointed out political interference of counselors and stated that all this contributed to delay. 6. As the municipal council wanted to remove an unauthorised structure of petitioner, it proceeded further and at that stage it has claimed that it got knowledge of said judgment and decree. There is nothing on record to show that deliberately municipal council avoided to challenge the said judgment and decree. Intention to remove unauthorised structure, as alleged, has already come on record. In the circumstances, interest of justice can be met by directing respondent municipal council to pay sum of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner as costs towards condoning delay. The costs be paid within a period of six weeks from today by depositing the same before the Court of 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3311 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. District Judge-2 at Parbhani. If the costs are so deposited, liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the same. 7. Impugned judgment dated 18th February, 2010 is modified only to that extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:14/02/2011. ans/3311