1 / 3 24-cao 732-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION(CAO) NO. 732 OF 2026 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO.13108 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.504 OF 2018 Shrawan Bajirao Meshram (Masram) (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Venu Avdhoot Gedam ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Y.S.Nikam, advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.Y.Dunedar, advocate for the respondent. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATE : 09/10/2026 1. Heard. 2. The applicants have filed the present application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the order dated 06.09.2024, whereby the appeal came to be dismissed. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the appeal was dismissed on 06.09.2024 and there is a delay of 650 days in filing the present application. Applicant No. 4, Maroti Bajirao Meshram, who was looking after the legal proceedings, died in the year 2021. The other applicants were unaware of the proceedings, and the earlier Kavita 2026:BHC-NAG:13637 2 / 3 24-cao 732-26 learned advocate appearing for the applicants did not inform them about the dismissal of the appeal. Hence, the delay occurred. 4. The respondent has filed a reply opposing the application, contending that the reasons stated therein are not satisfactory. It is further submitted that similar applications are already on record. The contention that the applicants were residing far away and were unaware of the proceedings is incorrect, as they were attending the proceedings before the Revenue Court during the relevant period. On these grounds, the respondent has prayed for rejection of the application. 5. It appears from the record that there are 11 applicants, one of whom, namely, Maroti Bajirao Meshram, has died. The contention that, owing to his death, the remaining applicants were unaware of the court proceedings and, therefore, took no steps in the matter, including steps to ascertain the status of the appeal, is not convincing. 6. The applicants have also attributed the delay to the failure of the earlier learned advocate to inform them about the dismissal of the appeal. However, the applicants, who were admittedly attending the proceedings before the Revenue Court, cannot satisfactorily explain their lack of awareness regarding the present proceedings merely by attributing the same to their earlier advocate. Furthermore, although the applicants have blamed the earlier learned Kavita 3 / 3 24-cao 732-26 advocate, they have not disclosed the name of the advocate who was conducting the matter. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the reasons assigned by the applicants for the delay of 650 days in filing the application for setting aside the dismissal order and restoring the appeal are not satisfactory. No sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of the delay. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected. 8. The application stands disposed of. JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/10/2026 18:09:02