(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4229 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4229 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4229 OF 2005 IN IN IN FIRST APPEAL (St.) NO. 14282 OF 2005 FIRST APPEAL (St.) NO. 14282 OF 2005 FIRST APPEAL (St.) NO. 14282 OF 2005 Rohidas Bhagirat Bhati ...Applicant Versus Pune Municipal Corporation Pune. ...Respondent ..... Shri. A. V Anturkar with Mrs. Vinita V. Bakre-Shastry counsel for the Applicant. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2005 DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2005 DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2005 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant. None appears for Respondent though served. 3. By this Civil Application, the Applicant is seeking for condonation of 18 days’ delay. We have perused the Civil Application. For the reasons stated in the Civil Application, sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. There is no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide, hence, Civil Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). *****