1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3671 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION STAMP NO.6489 of 2008 Govind s/o Navasaji Shitale, now dead through his heir and legal representative : Smt. Neelabai Narayan Shitale ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri M.M. Nerlikar, Advocate for the applicant Shri M.L. Dharashive, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM : S.P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 19th June, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. 2. The applicant has preferred the present Civil Application, requesting to condone the delay of 1238 days in filing the accompanying Civil 2 Revision Application under Stamp No.6489/ 2008. 3. The applicant contends that she has preferred accompanying Civil Revision Application challenging the common judgment and order dated 5.8.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli in Land Acquisition Reference No.10/1996. The applicant also states that the applicant No.2 is the daughter-in-law, heir and legal representative of deceased Govind who died on 1.8.1999 and Narayan was the only son of deceased Govind, who also died on 2.10.2002. Deceased Govind died during the pendency of above said Land Acquisition Reference No.10/1996 and now the present applicant is the only surviving heir and legal representative of deceased Govind. 4. The applicant stated that she was not aware of pendency of Land Acquisition Reference No.10/1996 and she came to know about the same when she came across some papers kept in the file in the house on 31.12.2007. Hence, immediately she contacted the Advocate and thereafter she came to know about the dismissal of Land Acquisition Reference No.10/1996 on 4.1.2008 and received the copy on 7.1.2008. 5. It is the contention of the applicant that in fact there is no delay in filing the accompanying Civil Revision Application since the date of knowledge about the dismissal of the said Land Acquisition Reference No.10/1996 i.e. 31.12.2007. However, still if the date of common judgment i.e. 5.8.2004 is 3 considered, there is delay of 1238 days in filing the accompanying Civil Revision Application and said delay is not intentional and deliberate, but occurred due to circumstances. Hence, the applicant requested to condone the delay. 6. Shri M.L. Dharashive, learned A.G.P. for respondents opposed the present Civil Application vehemently, contending that there is no substance in the present Civil Application and the applicants have not accounted for the delay and present Civil Application is devoid of any merits and, therefore, submitted that same be rejected. 7. Considering the rival submissions, since the applicant has categorically pointed out that she is the sole surviving heir and legal representative of deceased Govind since Govind expired on 1.8.1999 as well as his son Narayan also expired on 2.10.2002, and since she was not aware about the pendency of Land Acquisition Reference No.10/1996, and got the knowledge thereof when she came across the papers thereof on 31.12.2007, apparently the delay occurred in filing accompanying Civil Revision Application is not deliberate and willful. 8. Thus, apparently since circumstances were beyond the control of the applicant, the delay of 1238 days occurred in filing the accompanying Civil Revision Application is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 4 9. In the result, the present Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) thereof and delay of 1238 days caused in filing accompanying Civil Revision Application stands condoned in the interest of justice. Civil Application stands disposed of. Registry to register the accompanying Civil Revision Application and place the same before the Court for admission on 15.7.2009. (S.P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/ca3671.08