1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A. NO. 5559/2007 IN MCA ST. NO. 12593/2007 IN SA NO. 325 OF 2005 Hiraman Punaji Ramteke & Ors. vs. Rambhau Ragho Ramteke & Ors. ____________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 17, 2008. Heard Shri Dhanagare, Advocate for the applicants/ appellants and Shri Khajanchi, Advocate for the respondents. The prayer is to condone delay of 321 days in filing MCA St. No.12593 of 2007. Second Appeal No. 325 of 2005 was filed by present appellants challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees, asking them to deliver possession to original respondent/ landlord. The appeal was accompanied by a prayer for condonation of delay. The said prayer was granted. When the appeal itself was listed for admission on 16.8.2006, it was dismissed in default as it went unattended. Shri Dhanagare, Advocate states that the listing of matter for admission was not noticed by the advocate and therefore the error occurred. Shri Khajanchi, Advocate for the respondents states that the appellants had been 2 negligent right from the beginning and he wants to show how they were negligent during the pendency of Civil Suit or while prosecuting Regular Civil Appeal. He further states that even they did not contact the advocate in the High Court for long time. He further points out that present Civil Application is also dismissed as against Respondent No.1-D and hence the judgment and decree for possession has become final insofar as she is concerned. He, therefore, contends that entire Second Appeal has abated and according to him, if any other view is taken, it would result in inconsistent decrees. Shri Dhanagare, Advocate for the applicants points out that the appeal was registered after condoning delay and he contends that all these objections are not open. According to him, only relevant issue in deciding present Civil Application is whether there were just and sufficient reasons for not moving application within time. I have perused the application as also Misc. Civil Application which is supported by an affidavit of the learned advocate himself. In the circumstances, I do not find any malafides on the part of the applicants and as such delay of 321 days is condoned. However, all arguments raised by Shri 3 Khajanchi, Advocate, are available and are kept open for consideration at the stage of admission of Second Appeal. In view of this order, delay of 321 days in filing MCA St. No.12593 of 2007 is condoned. Similarly, the prayer made in MCA St. No. 12593 of 2007 is also condoned. The order dated 16.8.2006 dismissing Second Appeal at the stage of admission is hereby recalled. The office to place Second Appeal for admission before the appropriate Bench immediately. JUDGE *GS.