1 ca952.08 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 952 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 12642 OF 2007 (Pralhad Gyanoba More Vs. Nandkumar Madhukar Joshi & Anr.) Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 22.06.2011 Mr. Vinesh C. Solshe, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.C. Swami, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 1. The only objection that can be taken into consideration, raised by the respondents is that this application seeking condonation of delay has not been verified by the appellant. It is verified by his son who is now handling the litigation. It is mentioned in the affidavit of the appellant’s son that his father is bed ridden and has become infirm due to age. Unless it is controverted, the objection cannot be taken seriously. The appeal memo and Vakalatnama has been signed by the appellant himself. In view 2 ca952.08 of this the delay of 16 days deserves to be condoned. The application is allowed. Rule made absolute. 2. Fix the appeal for admission on 4th July, 2011. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/JUN11/ca952.08