1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION(F) NO. 1407 /2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.139 / 2008 (Vidarbha Irrigation Dev.Corpn.vs. Dnyaneshwar Kawale and others ) ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr A V Palshikar, Adv. for appellant/applicant Shri A R Sambre, Adv.for R-1 Mr D M Kale, AGP for Res.Nos. 2 and 3 CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 3 rd August, 2010. Heard. By this application, the applicant/respondent no.1 prays for permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant. According to the learned Advocate for appellant/non- applicant, in order to show bona fides the amount has been deposited and the applicant is not entitled to withdraw the amount because reference itself was time barred and the reference Court fell in error in holding that the reference was within limitation. It is further contended that the applicant had received notice u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and payment thereon on 27.12.1999 and as such, reference ought to have filed on or before 7.2.2000, considering the nature of the award as well as time required for obtaining certified copy in respect of the same. Reliance is placed upon the ruling in (1996) 9 SCC 414 with reference to Section 2 29(2) of the Limitation Act and it is contended that time required for certified copy cannot be excluded and, therefore reference was clearly barred by time of ten days. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant stated that in C.A. No.3090/2009, 50 % of the amount deposited was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court. However, it is quickly replied by the learned Advocate for the appellant that in that case the issue of limitation as agitated in the present application was not canvassed. Under these circumstances the prayer for withdrawal of the amount can not be considered. Civil Application is rejected. However, liberty is granted for the respondent /applicant to apply for early hearing of the First Appeal. JUDGE Sahare