IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.603 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.399 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant. v. GENBA NANA POMBALE ...Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.604 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.400 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant v. Vilas M. Pingale and Other ..Respondens. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.605 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.401 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..Applicant v. NATHU GOVIND JADHAV AND OTHER ..Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.606 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.402 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..Applicant. V/S PANDU BAJU POMBHALE ...Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.607 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..Applicant. V/S BHAGUJI RAGHU NAVALE AND OTHER ..Respondents. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.608 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.404 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..APPLICANT. V/S JAYSINGH BHAGWANT DESHMUKH AND OTHERS ..Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.609 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.405 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Applicant. V/S TUKARAM S.DESHMUKH ..Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.610 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.406 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Applicant. V/S TUKARAM SAMBHA SATPUTE ..Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.611 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..Applicant. v. BABAN GOVIND HARNAWAL DECEASED THROUGH NARAYAN B. Harnawal and Ors. ..Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.612 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.408 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..Applicant. V/S RAMDAS GOVIND HARNAWL ..Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.613 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.409 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..Applicant. V/S RAMCHANDRA KODIBA MOHITE ..Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.614 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.410 OF 2009 THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER ..Applicant. V/S KARBHARI TANAJI SANAP ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.616 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.411 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..APPLICANT. V/S POPAT G. HARNAWAL ...RESPONDENT. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.615 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.412 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..APPLICANT. V/S SHAIKH TAYYAB CHANDULALBHAI ..RESPONDENT. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.617 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.413 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..APPLICANT. V. JAGNATH GOVIND HARNAWAL @ NAGNATH GOVIND HARNAWAL ..RESPONDENTS. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.618 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.414 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..APPLICANT. V/S SHAIKH GULABAI CHANDULALBHAI ..RESPONDENT. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.619 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.415 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Applicant. V/S LAXMAN MARTAND THAWARE DECEASED THROUGH MALHARI L. THAWARE & ORS ...Respondents. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 620 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.416 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..APPLICANT. V. LAXMAN M. THAWARE DECEASED THROUGH MALHARI L. THAWARE & ORS. ..RESPONDENT. SHRI A.R.PATIL, AGP FOR THE STATE. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATED: 15.10.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Being aggrieved by the awards passed by the Reference Courts, State of Maharashtra had filed a large number of First Appeals with civil applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals as well as civil applications for stay to the said orders. Therefore, First Appeals as well as stay applications were given stamp numbers. After approval from the Law and Judiciary Department, appeals were filed by the office of the Government Pleader in the High Court but the acquiring body had not made arrangement for the payment of Court fee and, therefore, Court fee was not paid while filing the appeals. The Registrar (Judicial) had granted time for paying Court­ fee. However, when after extention of time repeatedly, Court­fee was not paid, conditional order was passed by the Registrar and due to failure to pay Court­fee in spite of conditional order, registration of the appeals was refused. 2 Thereafter, as per the prevailing practice, State of Maharashtra filed civil applications for setting aside order of the Registry and for restoration of the First Appeals explaining the circumstances in which the delay was caused. It was explained that after some delay, funds were provided to the Government Pleader office for making payment of Court fee in each of these appeals. Some of the civil applications for restoration of such First Appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 28th March, 2009. After referring to the provisions of Chapter 5 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, the Division Bench observed that the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) , which was sought to be set aside, was passed under Rule 4 (vi) of Chapter V of the High Court (Appellate Side) Rules and the remedy of the revision is provided in Rule 6 of Chapter V. In view of this, it was held that civil applications will not be tenable and the State will have to prefer revision application against the order of the Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration or rejecting appeals for non payment of the Court­fee. 3 As the State had followed earlier practice in filing civil applications and now they are required to file revision applications, delay was caused. Therefore, these civil applications are filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision applications. 4 As the appeals were given only stamp numbers and even the notices in the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals were not issued when the registration of the appeals was refused, I find that there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondents while disposing of these applications for condonation of delay and the revision applications. 5 Heard the learned A.G.P. For the reasons given in the applications and the above circumstances, these applications are allowed and delay in filing the revision applications is hereby condoned. Revision Applications be registered. 6 On registration, revision applications are immediately taken for hearing. The learned AGP has explained the circumstances in which the delay was caused in not paying Court­fee. The learned AGP also makes a statement that the Government has already provided funds to the Government Pleader office by the common demand draft and, therefore, Court fee can be paid within a reasonable time required to purchase Court stamps. In view of this and in the public interest, I find that it is necessary to allow revision applications and to set aside the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration of the appeals. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, revision applications are allowed. The impugned order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration of the First Appeals is hereby set aside. Said appeals alongwith the applications therein are hereby restored to the file. State of Maharashtra is permitted to pay Court­fee within six weeks from this day. 8 The Civil Applications and the Revision applications stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) IA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.621 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.417 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Applicant. V/S BALU SAKHARAM KEDARI ..Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.622 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.418 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S GANPAT MUKUND KEDARI DECEASED THROUGH 1 RAJENDRA G. KEDARI ..Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.623 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.419 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S SHANKAR KESHAV UBALE DECEASED THROUGH 1/1 DHARMARAJ S. UBALE ..Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.624 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.420 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S SHANTARAM KONDAJI KEDARI DECEASED THROUGH 1/1 VIKAS S. KEDARI ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.625 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.421 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/S VASANTIBAI MAHADEO DHARNE ..Respondent. WITH CIVIAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.626 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.422 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/s. RAMESH BANDU BHOLE ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.627/2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.423 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S SHANKAR VITTHAL RELEKAR ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.628 OF2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.424 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S DHANANJAY DAGADU KAHANE, ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.629 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.425 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S TILWAN TELI SAMAJ TRUST, WADA , TALUKA KHED ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.630 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.426 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S DHONDIRAM GANPAT KEDARI ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.631 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.427 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Applicant. V/S SURESH MANOHAR BHAMBURDEKAR,(SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH 1A KITIN S. BHAMBURDEKAR ..Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.632 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.428 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S MARTAND RAMJI KAHANE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS. ..Respondent. GOVIND M. KAHANE WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.429 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/S MURLIDHAR VYANKATESH PENDSE ..Respondent. POWER OF ATTORNY HOLDER PRASAD M. PENDSE WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.634 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.430 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/S SURESH BANDU BHOLE. ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.635 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.431 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/S HANUMAN MANDIR ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.636 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.432 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/S HUNUMAN MANDIR ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.433 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S JAIBAI RAVJI KAHANE,(DECEASED) ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.638 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.434 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S NARAYAN RAGHU RAJGURRA0 ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.639 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.435 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/S SULOCHANA BHIKAJI SHINGARE ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.640 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.436 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/S SULOCHANA BHIKAJI SHINGARE ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.641 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.437 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/S KADAR SHAIKHLAL INAMDAR ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.642 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.438 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/s. GABAJI ABA BORAADE(DEAD) 1(A)DAGDABAI GABAJI BORAADE ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.643 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.439 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/S VASANTIBAI MAHADEO DHARANE. ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.644 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.440 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/S RAJENDRA SUDAM PAWAR ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.645 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.442 OF 2009 THE STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA V/S ARVIND LAXMAN GOLE ..Respondent. (The State of Maharashtra is the applicant in all the matters) SHRI A.R.PATIL, AGP FOR THE STATE. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATED: 15.10.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Being aggrieved by the awards passed by the Reference Courts, State of Maharashtra had filed a large number of First Appeals with civil applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals as well as civil applications for stay to the said orders. Therefore, First Appeals as well as stay applications were given stamp numbers. After approval from the Law and Judiciary Department, appeals were filed by the office of the Government Pleader in the High Court but the acquiring body had not made arrangement for the payment of Court fee and, therefore, Court fee was not paid while filing the appeals. The Registrar (Judicial) had granted time for paying Court­ fee. However, when after extention of time repeatedly, Court­fee was not paid, conditional order was passed by the Registrar and due to failure to pay Court­fee in spite of conditional order, registration of the appeals was refused. 2 Thereafter, as per the prevailing practice, State of Maharashtra filed civil applications for setting aside order of the Registry and for restoration of the First Appeals explaining the circumstances in which the delay was caused. It was explained that after some delay, funds were provided to the Government Pleader office for making payment of Court fee in each of these appeals. Some of the civil applications for restoration of such First Appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 28th March, 2009. After referring to the provisions of Chapter 5 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, the Division Bench observed that the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) , which was sought to be set aside, was passed under Rule 4 (vi) of Chapter V of the High Court (Appellate Side) Rules and the remedy of the revision is provided in Rule 6 of Chapter V. In view of this, it was held that civil applications will not be tenable and the State will have to prefer revision application against the order of the Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration or rejecting appeals for non payment of the Court­fee. 3 As the State had followed earlier practice in filing civil applications and now they are required to file revision applications, delay was caused. Therefore, these civil applications are filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision applications. 4 As the appeals were given only stamp numbers and even the notices in the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals were not issued when the registration of the appeals was refused, I find that there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondents while disposing of these applications for condonation of delay and the revision applications. 5 Heard the learned A.G.P. For the reasons given in the applications and the above circumstances, these applications are allowed and delay in filing the revision applications is hereby condoned. Revision Applications be registered. 6 On registration, revision applications are immediately taken for hearing. The learned AGP has explained the circumstances in which the delay was caused in not paying Court­fee. The learned AGP also makes a statement that the Government has already provided funds to the Government Pleader office by the common demand draft and, therefore, Court fee can be paid within a reasonable time required to purchase Court stamps. In view of this and in the public interest, I find that it is necessary to allow revision applications and to set aside the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration of the appeals. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, revision applications are allowed. The impugned order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration of the First Appeals is hereby set aside. Said appeals alongwith the applications therein are hereby restored to the file. State of Maharashtra is permitted to pay Court­fee within six weeks from this day. 8 The Civil Applications and the Revision applications stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) II IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.441 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.646 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Applicant. V/S ANUSAYABAI GANPAT KOKANE ..Respondent. SHRI A.R.PATIL, AGP FOR THE STATE. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATED: 15.10.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Being aggrieved by the awards passed by the Reference Courts, State of Maharashtra had filed a large number of First Appeals with civil applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals as well as civil applications for stay to the said orders. Therefore, First Appeals as well as stay applications were given stamp numbers. After approval from the Law and Judiciary Department, appeals were filed by the office of the Government Pleader in the High Court but the acquiring body had not made arrangement for the payment of Court fee and, therefore, Court fee was not paid while filing the appeals. The Registrar (Judicial) had granted time for paying Court­ fee. However, when after extention of time repeatedly, Court­fee was not paid, conditional order was passed by the Registrar and due to failure to pay Court­fee in spite of conditional order, registration of the appeals was refused. 2 Thereafter, as per the prevailing practice, State of Maharashtra filed civil applications for setting aside order of the Registry and for restoration of the First Appeals explaining the circumstances in which the delay was caused. It was explained that after some delay, funds were provided to the Government Pleader office for making payment of Court fee in each of these appeals. Some of the civil applications for restoration of such First Appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 28th March, 2009. After referring to the provisions of Chapter 5 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, the Division Bench observed that the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) , which was sought to be set aside, was passed under Rule 4 (vi) of Chapter V of the High Court (Appellate Side) Rules and the remedy of the revision is provided in Rule 6 of Chapter V. In view of this, it was held that civil applications will not be tenable and the State will have to prefer revision application against the order of the Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration or rejecting appeals for non payment of the Court­fee. 3 As the State had followed earlier practice in filing civil applications and now they are required to file revision applications, delay was caused. Therefore, these civil applications are filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision applications. 4 As the appeals were given only stamp numbers and even the notices in the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals were not issued when the registration of the appeals was refused, I find that there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondents while disposing of these applications for condonation of delay and the revision applications. 5 Heard the learned A.G.P. For the reasons given in the application and the above circumstances, the application is allowed and delay in filing the revision applications is hereby condoned. Revision Application be registered. 6 On registration, revision application is immediately taken for hearing. The learned AGP has explained the circumstances in which the delay was caused in not paying Court­fee. The learned AGP also makes a statement that the Government has already provided funds to the Government Pleader office by the common demand draft and, therefore, Court fee can be paid within a reasonable time required to purchase Court stamps. In view of this and in the public interest, I find that it is necessary to allow revision application and to set aside the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration of the appeals. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, revision application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration of the First Appeal is hereby set aside. Said appeal alongwith the application therein are hereby restored to the file. State of Maharashtra is permitted to pay Court­fee within six weeks from this day. 8 The Civil Application and the Revision application stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) III IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 443 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.647 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER V/S SUBASH SITARAM SHITOLE AND OTHERS ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.444 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.648 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER V/S SATU NANA UMAP AND OTHER ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.445 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.649 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER V/S DNYANOBA BALAKU PHANASE ANDOHER ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.446 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.650 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER V/S BAPU VISHNU KSHIRSAGAR ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.447 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.651 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER V/S TUKARAM BABAN UMAP AND OTHERS ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.448 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.652 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER V/S BABAN DAGADU INGAVALE AND OTHERS ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.449 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.653 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER V/S SHRI RAMESH GULAB INGAVALE AND OTHERS ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.654 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER V/S RAMA VISHNU UMBAP AND OTHER ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.451 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.655 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER V/S ANAND BALA MORE (DEAD) THROUGH SUNIL ANANDA MORE AND OTHERS ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.452 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.656 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER V/S BABAN RAMCHANDRA PAWAR (DEAD) THROUGH YASHODABAI B. PAWAR AND ORS. ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.453 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.657 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER V/S MARUTI BALA KHADALKAR DEAD THROUGH BABAN MARUTI KHADALKAR AND OTHERS ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.454 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.658 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S PRABHU SHANKAR KSHIRSAGAR AND OTHERS ..Respondent. (The State of Maharashtra and other are the applicants in all the matters) SHRI A.R.PATIL, AGP FOR THE STATE. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATED: 15.10.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Being aggrieved by the awards passed by the Reference Courts, State of Maharashtra had filed a large number of First Appeals with civil applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals as well as civil applications for stay to the said orders. Therefore, First Appeals as well as stay applications were given stamp numbers. After approval from the Law and Judiciary Department, appeals were filed by the office of the Government Pleader in the High Court but the acquiring body had not made arrangement for the payment of Court fee and, therefore, Court fee was not paid while filing the appeals. The Registrar (Judicial) had granted time for paying Court­ fee. However, when after extention of time repeatedly, Court­fee was not paid, conditional order was passed by the Registrar and due to failure to pay Court­fee in spite of conditional order, registration of the appeals was refused. 2 Thereafter, as per the prevailing practice, State of Maharashtra filed civil applications for setting aside order of the Registry and for restoration of the First Appeals explaining the circumstances in which the delay was caused. It was explained that after some delay, funds were provided to the Government Pleader office for making payment of Court fee in each of these appeals. Some of the civil applications for restoration of such First Appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 28th March, 2009. After referring to the provisions of Chapter 5 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, the Division Bench observed that the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) , which was sought to be set aside, was passed under Rule 4 (vi) of Chapter V of the High Court (Appellate Side) Rules and the remedy of the revision is provided in Rule 6 of Chapter V. In view of this, it was held that civil applications will not be tenable and the State will have to prefer revision application against the order of the Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration or rejecting appeals for non payment of the Court­fee. 3 As the State had followed earlier practice in filing civil applications and now they are required to file revision applications, delay was caused. Therefore, these civil applications are filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision applications. 4 As the appeals were given only stamp numbers and even the notices in the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals were not issued when the registration of the appeals was refused, I find that there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondents while disposing of these applications for condonation of delay and the revision applications. 5 Heard the learned A.G.P. For the reasons given in the applications and the above circumstances, these applications are allowed and delay in filing the revision applications is hereby condoned. Revision Applications be registered. 6 On registration, revision applications are immediately taken for hearing. The learned AGP has explained the circumstances in which the delay was caused in not paying Court­fee. The learned AGP also makes a statement that the Government has already provided funds to the Government Pleader office by the common demand draft and, therefore, Court fee can be paid within a reasonable time required to purchase Court stamps. In view of this and in the public interest, I find that it is necessary to allow revision applications and to set aside the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) refusing registration of the