-: 1 :- C.A. NO.6803/2008 with C.A.Stamp No.10990/2008 with C.A. No.13651/2009 in C.R.A. No.592/2000 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6803 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.10990 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13651 OF 2009 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.592 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Shri S.V. Gundre, Advocate for applicant ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 1st December, 2010 1. Mr. Sugdare for the revision applicant is discharged as the matter is taken over by Mr. S.V. Gundre under consent. 2. Heard. Delay of 1283 days in filing the Civil Application seeking restoration of revision application is sought to be condoned. Though the petitioner submits such delay to be of 1283 days, however, it is more as the order of dismissal was dated 29.10.2004 and the petitioner claims knowledge of such dismissal on 17.5.2008. The record illustrate, all sorts of excuses are projected by the petitioner to take benefit of the delay. The delay is not in this Court alone, but the remissness is illustrated even before the learned District Judge where initially the appeal was belatedly filed. Then on -: 2 :- C.A. NO.6803/2008 with C.A.Stamp No.10990/2008 with C.A. No.13651/2009 in C.R.A. No.592/2000 its dismissal again restoration application and condonation of delay was moved. It was also lost. The ongoing litigation against the petitioner is of 1992, decided on 9.3.1995. The claim that it was for the first time the petitioner learnt of decreeing the suit dated 9.3.1995 owing to Regular Darkhast No.17/1997 is again rebelling the record as the petitioner as defendant was consciously aware of the litigation of Regular Civil Suit No.380/1992. These aspects do not call for any interference to condone the delay. The lapses attributed to the learned counsel representing the petitioner before this Court are misconceived. The mistake of the petitioner in prosecuting the matter should not be branded against the counsel representing the present petitioner. Application lacks merits, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Civil Application Stamp No. 10990/2008 and Civil Application No.13651/2009 are disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE fmp/ca6803.08