1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.7/2007. (Kashinath Basappa Chetke and Ors. Vs. Vishwanath Irappa Chetke and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 19 th November, 2010. ... 1) Counsel called, absent. 2) RCS No.221/2000 was dismissed for non- prosecution on 25.2.2005. Misc. Civil Application No.62/2005 was moved by the plaintiff, seeking restoration and condonation of delay of 187 days. The delay was condoned by the learned Judge being sufficiently explained by the respondent(plaintiff). Such observations are questioned in the present CRA. 3) By Misc. Civil Application No.62/2005, the delay was sought to be condoned and it was not that the learned Judge decided the application for restoration. The learned Judge found on evaluation of the evidence of Rukhminbai (Exhibit-19) that she was prevented from prosecuting the matter. The learned Judge also found that the counsel representing the plaintiff could not remain present which has resulted in dismissal dated 2 25.2.2005. Since the learned Judge found that there were justifiable grounds to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration, I do not see any perversity and illegality therein seeking interference in terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4) In the result, CRA lacks merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D) vacated forthwith. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/