1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 142 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Advocate Shri B.S.Kudale, for the applicants and Shri M.B. Kolpe for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. This civil revision application is directed against the order passed by Adhoc District Judge-II, Ambajogai, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.17 of 2009 on 28.4.2009, condoning delay of 9 months and 19 days in making application for setting aside abatement, bringing legal heirs of deceased Ramrao Limbaji Gaikwad, on costs of Rs.1,000/=. 2 3. Present revision applicant Satyabhama is the widow of deceased Ramrao. Applicant No. 2 is their daughter. Satyabhamabai had filed R.C.S. No.330 of 1996 against Ramrao and others for partition and separate possession, which was decreed. As against the said decree, Ramrao had filed R.C.A. No.178 of 2000. Pending that appeal, appellant Ramrao expired and as such the said appeal abated. Thereafter Miscellaneous Civil Application No.17 of 2009 was filed by present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for restoration of the said appeal, condonation of delay and setting aside abatement of appeal. That application came to be allowed vide order dated 28.4.2009 which is challenged in this revision application. 4. Present applicants in para 4 of Misc.Civil Application No.17 of 2009 filed 3 by them before the District Court have stated that Ramrao was the sole appellant and they were not aware about appeal filed by him and Advocate also had not informed anything to them. Only after Taluka Inspector of Land Records gave them notice for measurement that they came to know about abatement of the appeal. 5. Learned trial judge considered various authorities and was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 6. After going through the impugned judgment, in my opinion, this is not a case wherein interference is called for. However, at the same time, considering age of present applicant No.1, it is necessary to expedite the hearing of the appeal. The District Court, Ambajogai is, therefore, directed to expedite hearing of 4 the Regular Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2000 and as far as possible decide and dispose it of within three months from today. Learned counsel for revision applicant has also stated that the respondents may be directed to pay some maintenance pending the appeal, as applicant Satyabhamabai is of old age and unable to maintain herself. She is at liberty to make appropriate application before the appellate court which the appellant court shall consider on its own merits. 7. With observations as above, civil revision application is disposed of. Date:14/10/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/cra142.09