TANHABAI SAKHARAM MUNDHE Vs. MANGALA RAMDAS VAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In spite of the notice issued on 28.09.2005 to the respondents, none appeared and, therefore, by order dated 03.08.2008, fresh notice was directed to be issued to the respondents with intimation that the petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. In spite of service of this notice also, none appears today on behalf of the respondents. Hence, Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith.

(2.) The petition takes exception to the order dated 06.03.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Buldhana below Exh.-1 in M. J. C. No. 8/2006 whereby delay of 11 months in preferring the appeal was not condoned.

(3.) The predecessor-in-title of the petitioner was defendant No. 2, respondent No. 3 was defendant No. 1 and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 40/1997. The suit was filed for recovery of possession and mesne profit and the same came to be decreed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ex parte by judgment dated 30.01.1999 as the petitioner and respondent No. 3 could not remain present.