962 CA NO. 2391 OF 2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 962 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2391 OF 2026 IN SAST/28225/2024 Pachulal Maheboob Pathan VERSUS Khajabegum W/o Hannan Patel ... Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for Applicant Ms. Aishwarya N. Tanpure h/f Mr. Adesh R. Ban, Advocate for Respondent No.7 (caveator) …. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 02.09.2026 PER COURT :- 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 193 days caused in filing the present Civil Application and for setting aside the order dated 26.02.2025 passed by the learned Registrar (Judicial) for non-removal of office objections and for restoring Second Appeal (ST) No.28225 of 2024 to its original stage. 2. Heard Mr. G. R. Syed, learned Advocate for the Applicants. He submits that, due to non-removal of the office objections, a conditional order came to be passed by the learned Registrar (Judicial) on 26.02.2025 and registration of the Second Appeal was refused. He submits that the Applicants had earlier filed Civil Application No.8203 of 2025 seeking recall of the order 1 of 3 (( 2 )) 962 CA NO. 2391 OF 2026 dated 26.02.2025. By order dated 07.08.2025, the Applicants were permitted to remove the office objections within two weeks, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. He submits that the Applicants complied with all the office objections except Objection No.3, which reads as under: “3. Name of Respondent No.2 is shown in the R.C.S. judgment but is not made a party in the R.C.A. judgment.” He submits that the said objection is beyond the control of the Applicants and, therefore, the conditional order has taken effect. He further submits that the delay caused in filing the present application is neither deliberate nor intentional. He, therefore, prays that Second Appeal (ST) No.28225 of 2024 be restored to its original stage. 3. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.7 strongly opposes the application and submits that there is no sufficient reasons to condone the delay. She lastly prays to reject the Application. 4. Perused the application. Considering the reasons stated therein, it appears that the delay has not been caused deliberately. Therefore, the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. It is also pointed out that Respondent No.2–Habibunnisa W/o 2 of 3 (( 3 )) 962 CA NO. 2391 OF 2026 A. Hannan Patel is shown as a party in the judgment and decree passed in R.C.S. No.3 of 2011, however, her name has not been shown as a party in the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No.67 of 2014. Therefore, it would be proper to direct the Registry to forward the judgment and decree to the concerned Court for carrying out the necessary correction by adding Respondent No.2–Habibunnisa W/o A. Hannan Patel as a respondent party in R.C.A. No.67 of 2014. Hence, the following order: ::ORDER:: a. The application is allowed. b. The delay of 193 days caused in filing the Civil Application for restoration of Second Appeal (ST) No.28225 of 2024 to its original position is condoned. c. Second Appeal (ST) No.28225 of 2024 is restored to its original position. d. The Registry shall forward the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No.67 of 2014 to the concerned Court for carrying out the necessary correction by adding Respondent No.2–Habibunnisa W/o A. Hannan Patel as a respondent party therein. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] HRJadhav 3 of 3