1 ca14104.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14104 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.229 OF 2003 IN CIVIL APPLN. (STAMP) NO. 9324 OF 1998 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 9322 OF 1998 (REJECTED CASE NO.3447 OF 2007) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Coram: Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 28.01.2011. 1. Heard Shri P.B. Rakhunde, learned Counsel holding for Shri S.B. Bhapkar, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant. 2. Issue notices to the Respondents. Shri B.J. Sonawane, learned A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents. 2 ca14104.10 3. This is an application preferred by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 1124 days caused in filing present civil application for restoration of Civil Application (St.) No. 9324 of 1998 along with First Appeal (St.) No. 9322 of 1998 to its original stage, by modifying the order dated 6.7.2007, passed by this Court in Civil Application No.229 of 2003 and also for setting aside the order dated 3.11.1998 passed by the learned Additional Registrar refusing registration of Civil Application (St.) No. 9324 of 1998 and First Appeal (St.) No. 9322 of 1998. 4. The applicant's case is that he had filed aforesaid first appeal, along with civil application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 30.7.1994 rendered by the learned II Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani, in L.A.R. No. 3 ca14104.10 168 of 1991. The said civil application and appeal were placed before the learned Additional Registrar on 3.11.1998 since office objections were not complied with, and the learned Additional Registrar refused registration of the appeal, as well as civil application, for want of removal of office objections. Thereafter, learned Advocate for the applicant did not attend the said matter, due to oversight. The applicant- appellant submits that he is ready to remove office objections in the first appeal, as well as in the civil application. The applicant submits that he has good case on merits and hopes to succeed in the first appeal. It is also stated that the subject-matter of the appeal is enhancement of compensation for the land acquired by the Govt. 5. The applicant also submits that he has filed Civil Application No.229 of 2003 for setting aside the order dated 3.11.1998 passed by the 4 ca14104.10 Additional Registrar, which was placed for orders on 6.9.2007, but since the applicant was not present when the matter was called out, the said civil application was dismissed for default by the court. It is submitted that the applicant got knowledge of the said order dated 6.9.2007, in the month of March - 2010. The applicant was in financial difficulties and was engaged in agricultural work and, therefore, delay was caused in filing civil application for modification of the order dated 6.9.2007. Accordingly, the applicant urged that present civil application be allowed in the interest of justice. 6. Learned A.G.P. Shri B.J. Sonawane opposed the application, vehemently and submitted that there is no sufficient ground given by the applicant for allowing present application. It is also submitted that the applicant is not diligent in prosecuting the 5 ca14104.10 proceedings and hence, present civil application deserves to be dismissed. 7. It is also submitted by learned A.G.P. that the award under challenge, has been passed properly and appropriately, considering the sale instances on record and there is no necessity to interfere therein and, therefore also, present application deserves to be rejected. 8. Considering rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, it is to be noted that delay of 1124 days caused in filing present application has not been explained by the applicant, satisfactorily. Moreover, the applicant has also failed to plead and prove sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is also evident from the foregoing pleadings that the applicant was not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings before this court. Hence, it does not 6 ca14104.10 appear that the delay caused is not wilful, deliberate and intentional. Apparently, the said delay is inordinate and hence, present civil application deserves to be rejected. 9. In the result, since the present application bears no substance, same stands dismissed. Consequently, order dated 6.9.2007 dismissing Civil Application No. 229 of 2003 for setting aside the order dated 3.11.1998 passed by the learned Additional Registrar, does not require any modification. As a result, the order dated 3.11.1998 of the learned Additional Registrar, refusing registration of civil application (st.) No. 9324 of 1998 and First Appeal (st.) No.9322 of 1998, stands confirmed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) pnd/ca14104.10