1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.138 OF 2009 Ajay s/o Vasantrtao Gajre, Age 58 years, Occu.Retired, r/o Plot No.343, behind Deogiri Hotel, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Shalinibai w/o Vasantrao Gajre, Age: 70 years, Occ: Household, r/o: B-136/4, Govt.Colony, Bandra (East) - 400 054, Mumbai. 2. Sanjay s/o Vasantrao Gajre, Age: 45 years, Occ: Service, r/o As above. 3. Vijay s/o Vasantrao Gajre, Age: 43 years, Occ: Service, r/o as above. 4. Bharti w/o Prakash Maybhate, Age 43 years, Occ: Service, r/o as above. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.A.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Uday D.Dalvi, Adv., h/f Mr.M.G.Mustafa, Adv., for respondent no.1. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 served (by affixing). ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :12th Jan.,2010 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard Counsel for the revision petitioner and respondents, finally, at admission stage. 2. Learned Counsel assails the order dt. 12.6.2009 recorded by Ad hoc District Judge-1, Aurangabad, whereby he allowed the application for condonation of delay to prefer the appeal on costs of Rs.1,000/- payable to original plaintiff. 3. Learned Counsel submits that the order under challenge is of three lines, disclose non application of mind, the delay is of ten years, and not of 1600 days, the grounds assigned in the order are not in tune with the grounds raised in the application, the delay is not properly explained. 4. Learned Counsel submits that the Court should not show charity in the matter of condoning delay and, to emphasize his submissions, has taken recourse to the judgment in the matter of Laxman N.Divekar Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 1998(1) Mh.L.J.745) and judgment in the matter of Damodaran Pillai and others Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. ( 2005 (5) ALL MR (S.C.) 3 961 ) dt.8th Sept.,2005. 5. The contention that there is delay of 10 years and not of 1600 days, is incorrect, as by mere calculation, as has been made out in the application for restoration, it is explained. The second point about observation of the learned Judge in paragraph No.3, as argued by Mr.Bajaj, not flowing in tune with the application, is incorrect. It is so indicated in the application showing that how the applicant had undergone major operation and specific dates are given. 6. The controversy relates to a partition between close relations. The application also demonstrates, the Counsel engaged, unfortunately, became ill and, ultimately, succumbed on 9th Oct.,1998. Prior to his ill health, he was rather irregular in attending the Court as his daily pursuits for 5/6 years. 7. My attention is invited to paragraph no. 2 of the judgment in which Counsel appearing for the present petitioner Mr.P.M.Bedre made a statement, alternatively, if at all application is to be allowed, it should be allowed with heavy costs. 8. The submission, that there was no authority to grant such concession by the 4 Advocate need not be addressed. It is for the applicant herein to take appropriate recourse against the Advocate who has given such concession or made such statement before the learned Judge. 8. The fact remains, the condonation of delay by the learned Judge was justified as the difficulties which were surfacing showed sufficient cause. No charity or uncalled for sympathy is extended by the learned Judge. There is no deliberate attempt on the part of the defendant/respondent to stall the execution or to stall the rights of the plaintiff in the immoveable property. The controversy needs to be addressed by hearing the contesting parties and it need not go un-attended. 10. Civil Revision Application does not display any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, in terms of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. No costs. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] agp/138-09cra ...