1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.O.NO.23 OF 2011 IN C.A.NO.2317 OF 2005 IN M.C.A.NO.ST.NO.2914/04 IN REJ.S.A.NO.556 OF 2004. Sau.Shantabai Baliram Garad through L.Rs...vs.. Atmaram Kisan kadam and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. N.A.Vyawahare , Adv. for the applicant. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATE : 18.04.2011. This is an application for condonation of delay. There is no dispute that the appeal was dismissed before any notice was issued on it for non-removal of office objections. It is true that the appeal was filed in 2004. However, fact remains that the no notice thereon was issued. Since the office objections were not removed, the appeal was dismissed by the Registry. In that view of the matter, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents before deciding this application. Heard Mr.Vyawahare, learned counsel for the applicant. For the reasons stated in the application, I am satisfied that the delay in filing the 2 application for restoration is for bona fide reasons. Hence, the delay is condoned. Civil application is disposed of. M.C.A.ST.NO.19944 of 2010. This is an application for restoration of condonation of delay application. For the reasons stated in the application, C.A. is allowed. The application is disposed of. C.A.O.NO.24 OF 2011. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that sole appellant expired on 8/6/2007. He wants to bring on record the legal representatives of the sole appellant. There is no reason why the application should not be granted. Application is allowed. Amendment be carried out within two weeks. The appellant to remove office objections within four weeks. The appellant to circulate the appeal for admission before the court after removing the objections. JUDGE 3 chute