SURESH PRAHALAD PATIL vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 3 November 2023

<table border="1"><thead><tr><th data-bbox="83 121 208 161">03.11.2023</th><th data-bbox="211 121 761 161"><u>Roznama-MDRT-III</u><br/><u>M.A. No. 23 of 2018</u></th><th data-bbox="764 121 902 161">Next date</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td data-bbox="83 164 208 861"></td><td data-bbox="211 164 761 861"><p>Advocate Ms. Urmila Jha proxy counsel for Advocate Mr. Hina Modi for the Applicant.</p><p>Advocate Ms. Sheetal Jadhav for the Respondent No. 1.</p><p>Heard on M.A. for restoration of S.A. No. 223 of 2010. According to Applicant S.A. No. 223 of 2010 was filed in the year 2010 and matter was adjourned time and again and the Applicant was appearing regularly for six years and by mistake the Applicant noted the last date as 25.04.2016 but matter was not listed on that date and Applicant was informed that matter was listed on 12.04.2016 and DRT-III was transferred to Vashi, Navi Mumbai and Applicant was under the impression that he will receive transfer notice and next date but matter was dismissed on 12.04.2016 and Applicant came to know the same on 12.04.2016 and applied for certified copy on 13.04.2016 and receive the copy of the same on 18.04.2108 and Applicant filed</p></td><td data-bbox="764 164 902 861"></td></tr></tbody></table>

03.11.2023 M.A. No. 23 of 2018

separate application for condonation of delay but the grounds mentioned in the application are not sufficient to restore the S.A., S.A. was dismissed on 12.04.2016, whereas delay condonation application was filed on 23.04.2018 after two years of dismissal of the S.A. and as per Applicant there is delay of 22 months and 29 days to file miscellaneous application for recalling the order dt. 12.04.2016. The reasons put forth by the Applicant are not sufficient to condone the delay. Hence, this M.A. No. 23 of 2018 is dismissed.

File be consigned to the Record Room.

Closed

*Haim Kumar*

P.O. DRT-III

DRT