1 901-906caf3190group ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3190 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19162 OF 2011, CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4405 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.26358 OF 2011, CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3192 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19176 OF 2011, CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3194 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19172 OF 2011, CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3196 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19165 OF 2011, CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3198 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19157 OF 2011, CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3200 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19152 OF 2011 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.P.G.Lad a/w Mr.Vinod Mahadik for the Applicant Mr.R.A.Thorat i/b Mr.Bipin Joshi for the respondent CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 13,2011 P.C.: 2 901-906caf3190group 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The delay is of 2 years and 251 days. 2 Apart from applications for condonation of delay, there are additional affidavits filed for explaining the delay. The applications for condonation of delay have been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 3 The challenge in the appeals is to the impugned decrees passed by the Trial Court which hold that the notices of demolition issued by the Applicant-Corporation under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and orders passed thereon are illegal and null and void. 4 The learned counsel for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant desires to withdraw the notices under section 351 of the said Act and orders of 3 901-906caf3190group demolition passed thereon as the applicant desires to issue fresh notices under section 351 of the said Act. 5 The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that there is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 2 years and 251 days. His submission is that the fact that the Municipal Corporation wants to withdraw the notices and the orders passed thereon, is no ground to condone the delay. 6 It is well settled law that while considering the applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act, a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted. The suits were filed by the respondents for challenging the notices under section 351 of the said Act and orders of demolition passed thereon. The applicant- Corporation wants to withdraw the notices and the orders passed thereon. In the additional affidavits, the delay has been explained. The delay is mainly due 4 901-906caf3190group to the procedure adopted by the office of the Municipal Corporation. The said Corporation is required to face large number of litigations in all Courts in the city. 7 Apart from the averments made in the applications and in the additional affidavits, in view of the aforesaid statement, a case is made out for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned. Applications are allowed. JUDGE