ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1398 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 1398 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 1398 OF 2008 IN IN IN APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.758 OF 2007 NO.758 OF 2007 NO.758 OF 2007 IN IN IN LAND LAND LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO. 5 OF 2006 ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO. 5 OF 2006 ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO. 5 OF 2006 Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai ...Appellant. Versus Pundlik R.Mahulkar & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.P.G.Lad a/w Mr.K.N.Gaikwad for the Appellant. Mr.R.C.Nichani for Respondent No.1. Ms.Rajiv Mane, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.B.MHASE & : S.B.MHASE & : S.B.MHASE & R.V.MORE, R.V.MORE, R.V.MORE, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2008 : 22ND AUGUST, 2008 : 22ND AUGUST, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides. 2. This Notice of Motion is filed for condonation of delay of 86 days. The ground taken by the Respondents for opposing it is that the Notice of Motion was not filed alongwith the Appeal as required under Order 41, Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in view of the Supreme Court ( 2 ) Judgment, in the case of State of M.P. and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. Vs. Pradeep Pradeep Pradeep Kumar & Anr. (2002)(7) S.C.C. 372, Kumar & Anr. (2002)(7) S.C.C. 372, Kumar & Anr. (2002)(7) S.C.C. 372, we do not find any substance in the contention of the Respondents. For the reasons stated in the affidavit the delay of 86 days in filing the Appeal is condoned. Office is directed to place the Appeal for admission in regular course. 3. The Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. (R.V.MORE, (R.V.MORE, (R.V.MORE, J.) J.) J.) (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, J.) J.) J.)