1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11214 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.: 11214 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shri Gajanan Shembole for Petitioner, senior Advocate Shri P.V.Mandlik with Advocate Shri Amol Gandhi for Respondent/ sole. 2. Contentions of Shri Shembole is, order condoning delay of 5 years and 9 months has been passed without serving any notice upon legal heirs of the respondent No.2 in the matter. Those legal heirs are shown as heirs of Petitioner No.2 in present matter. He relies upon last sentence in order sheet dated 20th September, 2010 as recorded by Deputy Director of Land Records to show that notice to these legal heirs has been ordered for the first time on the said date. 3. Shri Mandlik points out that appeal was required to be filed by the Respondent as it is original owner of the lands. Petitioner in collusion filed proceedings against 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11214 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. deceased Petitioner No.2 Sarmukhsingh and said Sarmukhsing gave no objection. Because of that no objection, name of respondent was deleted and name of petitioner was added on the property in dispute. When this came to knowledge of Respondent, appeal was filed by it and as there was delay, the delay has been condoned. According to learned senior Counsel, Sarmukhsing had no interest in the property and after giving alleged no objection, he lost whatever rights he could have claimed in it. 4. It is apparent that impugned order in appeal is in favour of present Petitioner No. 1 and has been obtained by him. By said order, petitioner No.2 (deceased) or his legal heirs are not in any way benefited. That order operated to the prejudice of Respondent and Respondent assailed it by filing appeal and sought condonation of delay. The delay has been condoned. The 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11214 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. delay condonation therefore operates to the prejudice of petitioner No.1 and not to the prejudice of legal heirs of deceased Petitioner No.2. I, therefore, find petition misconceived. Petition, therefore, is rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:25/01/2011. ans/11214