(-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. 262 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 262 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 262 OF 2004 IN IN IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST.) NO. 33098 OF 2004 FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST.) NO. 33098 OF 2004 FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST.) NO. 33098 OF 2004 Sou. Sashikala Jagganath Rathod ...Applicant Versus Jagannath Khodaji Rathod ...Respondent ..... Shri. M.R. Deshpande, counsel for the Applicant Shri. M.R. Katikar, counsel for Respondent. ..... 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: 5TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 5TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 5TH DECEMBER, 2005 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and Respondent. 2. Mr. Katikar, in his usual fairness does not oppose the application. By this application, the Applicant is seeking condonation of 83 days’ delay. For the reasons stated in the application, sufficient cause is made out. There is no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide. Hence, Civil Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). Place the matter for admission on 19.12.2005. *****