2302cao1118.09.odt 1/2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CAOST NO. 1118/2009 IN M.C.A. ST. NO. 14534/09 AND M.C.A. ST. NO. 14534/09 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 173/92 (D) (Veerumal Tejumal Tulsani Vs. Ku. Minaxi Chokhoba Khobragade & 7 others) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr. P. C. Marpakwar, Advocate for the applicant. C ORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATED : 23rd February, 2010. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of second appeal No. 173 of 1992 which was dismissed in default on 28/02/2008. The delay is of 18 months and 18 days. The main ground for delay is on account of the fact that the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant was of 75 years’ old as such he failed to notice that the said matter was on board. The applicant came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only after the execution proceedings were initiated by the respondent on 17/8/2009. Immediately, thereafter, the steps were taken to file the application for restoration as well as for condonation of delay. The facts stated in the application are supported 2302cao1118.09.odt 2/2 by an affidavit and the same have not been disputed by the respondents by filing any reply. In the interest of justice, as no mala fides are attributed to the applicant, the delay of 18 months and 18 days in filing the application for restoration is condoned subject to payment of costs Rs. 750/- (rupees seven hundred & fifty only) to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur. M.C.A. ST. NO. 14534/09 : By an order passed in civil application No. 1118 of 2009 the delay in filing this application has already been condoned. As the respondents failed to remain present to oppose the prayer of the applicant, I find no hesitation to grant the application for restoration. In view of the above, the application for restoration of the second appeal is granted. Second Appeal No. 173 of 2002 is restored to the file. The M. C. A. is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE wwl