Chandrakant Vithal Nagime v. MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the delay in filing the restoration application is condoned and the Second Appeal is restored to the file, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the learned counsel for the respondent. ( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )Jhs/1/1
Judgment
CA NO. 1480 OF 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1480 OF 2026INSECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 4641 OF 2025 Chandrakant Vithal NagimeVersusWaman Sopan Hanmante…Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant…CORAM:MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.DATED:27.03.2026PER COURT :
Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board.
The present application is filed for condonation of delay and for restoration of the Second Appeal.
It is submitted that the appeal came to be dismissed on19.03.2025 by the learned Registrar for non-removal of office objections, despite a conditional order being passed. Learned counselfor the applicant submits that due to inadvertence, the office objections could not be removed.
For the reasons stated in the application, the application deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the delay in filing the restoration application is condoned and the Second Appeal is restored to the file, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the learned counsel for the respondent. ( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )Jhs/1/1
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.