1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4264 OF 2006 IN CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.29131 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1384 OF 1989 Smt. Anwarbee w/o Abdul Qadar ... APPLICANT VERSUS Syed Akbar s/o Syed Noor & others .. RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.S. Nirkhee, Advocate for the applicant Shri H.V. Patil, Advocate for R.No.1, 3 to 7, 9 & 10 Shri D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for R.No.11 Respondent No.8 in spite of service, Application against R.No.2 abated as she is reported to be dead ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 25th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant (original petitioner) has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 169 days caused in filing the application for restoration of Writ Petition No.1384/1989 to its original file. 2 3. The applicant (original petitioner) submits that, she has filed Writ Petition No.1384/1989 challenging the judgment and order rendered by learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad and same was admitted and fixed for final hearing on 24.3.2004 and was notified on the said date accordingly. However, since Shri S.S. Nirkhee Advocate for petitioner remained absent, the said Writ petition came to be dismissed for default on the said date. 4. Shri Nirkhee, learned counsel appearing for the applicant (original petitioner) states that since he could not get daily board on 24.3.2004, he was completely unaware that the said matter was fixed on 24.3.2004 for final hearing before this Court (Coram : S.B. Deshmukh, J.). The learned counsel for the applicant further contends that he came to know about the dismissal of the said Writ Petition on 28.9.2004. In fact, it is the contention of the applicant that from the date of the said knowledge, present application is within the period of limitation, but the applicant has preferred the present application with abundant precaution to condone the delay of 169 days in filing the application for restoration of the said Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents opposed the present application vehemently and submitted 3 that present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same be rejected. 6. Considering the averments made in the present application which have been substantiated by separate affidavit filed by learned counsel Shri S.S. Nirkhee and also considering the rival contentions of the parties, it appears that the applicant (original petitioner) has explained the delay in paragraph nos.3, 4 and 5 of the applications satisfactorily. Moreover, the said delay does not appear tobe willful, deliberate and intentional and hence, same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 7. In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) thereof and delay of 169 days caused in filing the Civil Application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 1384/1989 stands condoned. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/ca4264.06