1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7010/2009. (Dattu Yadav Patil Vs. Shri Shaligram Bhika Choudhari & Anr.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.PS Shendurnikar, Adv. for petitioner; Mr.VP Patil, Adv. for Resp.Nos. 1 & 2. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 21 st October, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) The grievance of the writ petitioner is, the order below Exhibit – 90 in RCS No. 31/2008 dated 12.6.2009, calls for interference as the delay of 25 days, as has been recorded, will not be so. 3) I find substance in such submission as the order of abatement even if comes into play, the plaintiff expired on 6.4.2008, the application was certainly moved on 1.8.2008 and the basis was earlier Will-deed dated 30.4.2005, prescribed period of ninety days was available to be taken note in favour of the present petitioner. However, condonation of delay by itself will not mean to attribute allowing the application for accepting the writ 2 petitioner as legal representative as the learned Judge will independently consider merits of the same in the light of legal consequence. 4) Writ petition allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/