1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3065 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2510 OF 2005 Chimanlal Shah & ors. ... Applicants v/s Shantilal R. Parekh & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Ajay K.J.Panicker for the applicants. Mr.Sandesh Patil for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C.: 1. The civil application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the cross-objections. According to the learned advocate for the respondent, there is no delay in filing the cross- objections as he has filed it even before having received the notice of hearing of the appeal. He points out provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure to substantiate his 2 contention. 2. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the appellants submits that this provision of law cannot be construed in the manner which the respondents are attempting to do. He submits that the notice of hearing would mean the first date of hearing irrespective of whether the hearing is for admission or final hearing. He submits that there is a delay and the cross-objections are filed beyond the period of 221 days as mentioned in the application for condoning the delay. 3. In my opinion, without going into the niceties of construing and interpreting the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since there is a delay, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay is condoned. 4. Civil application allowed. ..... 3