1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1833 OF 2009 (Ramesh M. Baitule & Anr. vs. Samata Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr.) 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. JULY 01, 2010. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Motghare, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The Member, Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, has rejected Misc. Application (C.D.) No. 19 of 2007, seeking to condone delay of 107 days in preferring restoration application for restoring appeal. Appeal No. 18 of 2007 came to be dismissed for failure on the part of the applicants to take steps to serve the respondents. The learned Member found that there were two applicants before him and in application for restoration, the only reason of one of the applicant's being Contractor and out of station was assigned. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the application for condonation of delay in para 3 wrongly uses the word “he” and actually it should have been “they”. According to him, it is typing error. He invites attention to grounds specifically raised in this respect. 2 According to this Motghare, learned counsel, it is not typing error and ground is clearly by way of after thought. The perusal of application for condonation of delay shows that in paras 1, 2 & 4, plural i.e. the word “applicants” has been used. In para 3, it is stated that the applicant is petty contractor and thereafter word “he” has been used everywhere. It is apparent that same cannot, therefore, be viewed as typing error. The petitioners have not specified as to how that typing error occurred. In this situation, I find nothing wrong with the application of mind by the learned Member in rejecting the application. In the circumstances, Writ Petition is rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.