1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.104/2010. (Smt.Kamal Wd/o Maruti Pandhare Vs. Raghu Ganpat Pund and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.PK Palve, Adv. For petitioner; Mr.SV Kurundkar, Addl.GP for State; Mr.SD Katkar, Adv. For Resp.No.1. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 26 th November, 2010. ... 1) Heard learned Counsel extensively. 2) An application to set aside the dismissal of RCS No.112/2007 and to condone delay, being rejected by Misc.CA No.94/2009, is questioned in CRA. 3) The learned Judge while negating the contentions of sufficieny of causes to accept the delay of 274 days, found that son of the petitioner – Ganesh met with an accident on 1st July, 2008. He was discharged on 5.7.2008. The dismissal of the suit is subsequent dated 28.8.2008. Even after getting the certified copies of the judgment of dismissal, the petitioner did not venture to adopt appropriate proceedings. The medical evidence 2 tendered by the petitioner/plaintiff also rebelled against her stand and contention. In the set of above situation, I do not see any error on the part of the learned Judge in dismissing the application. 4) Mr.Palwe learned Counsel for petitioner/plaintiff submits there was a counter-claim of the defendant, which is so illustrated even in the issues. If it is so, needless to add, the counter claim will survive and the parties litigating will meet the same. 5) With above clarification, CRA dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/