STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DATTU MAHADEO MARKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned AGP Mr. S. P. Dound, for the applicant and learned counsel Mr. M. S. Patil, for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents undertakes to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents in Civil Application No. 6861 of 2008, 6862 of 2008 within two weeks from today.

(2.) The present civil application preferred by original Respondent-State of Maharashtra for condonation of 1336 days delay in preferring appeals against judgment and award dated 22-6-2004 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad. The learned AGP submitted that it remained on the part of Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad to file the present appeals immediately because they received typed copies of judgment and order from acquiring body on 25-4-2008. Not only that the Demand Draft for payment of court fees received from acquiring body on 22-2-2007. Not only because of the procedure as required for filing appeal on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, there is delay in preferring the present appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent filed affidavit in reply in Civil Application No. 6859 of 2008 and Civil Application No. 6860 of 2008 opposing the present civil application. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent vehemently opposed the present civil application for condonation of 1336 days delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and award dated 22-6-2004 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent pointed out that the office of the Government Pleader High Court, Aurangabad received sanction and other papers from Law and Judiciary Department on 18-8-2004, but the present appeal came to be filed on 16-6-2008. There is no explanation for this period in the present civil application. He further pointed out that the applicant failed to file affidavit of acquiring body explaining the delay in providing typed copies of judgment and award and court fees to the office of Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad for preferring present appeal. He further submitted that the learned AGP failed to explain the procedure to be followed by the State while filing appeal in this Court. On the basis of this submission, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent submitted that the present civil application be dismissed with costs.