IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4964 OF 2005 Raghunath Ramchandra Bhoite ).......Appellant versus Gahininath Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha) Mydt. Turambe )..... Respondants. Dr. M. Shah Alam Khan for the appellant CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 9TH JULY 2008. P.C.: 1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single dated 7th February 2008 vide which it was held that there is no reason to interfere with the order dated 21st June 2005 passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Pune condoning the delay of 61 days for filing the application for restoration and for restoring the original petition to the file. 2. The only ground raised before us is that while questioning the correctness of the said order no application was filed for condonation of delay as such the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay. Secondly the order passed by the original court dated 23rd April 2004 ought to be restored. We find no merit in this contention. Firstly for the reason that at page 43 of the paper book, the copy of the application has been placed on record which clearly shows that both the prayers were made in the application, praying for restoration of the petition and also for condoning the delay in filing the said application. This application was dismissed by the first court on the ground that there was no separate application. Reliance was sought to be placed upon the judgment of a Single Judge of this court in the case of Ballumal A Jaisingh Vs. M/s. J.J. Builders and others reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J . Page 238. 3. We have already noticed that there were joint prayers made in the application, which was contested by the party before the first court and the appellate court. The order of the appellate court condoning the delay and directing the restoration was challenged before this court. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties vide order dated 7th February 2008 dismissed the Writ Petition. We are unable to see any jurisdictional or apparent error in the order impugned before us. The judgment of the Single Judge has no application to the facts of the present case in as much as the prayer for condoning the delay has been decided by the learned Single Judge. The requirement of law in filing the application would be deemed to have been satisfied and even on facts there was an application made before the authorities concerned. The learned Single Judge further noticed that no prejudice is caused to the appellant even directing expeditious disposal of the Writ Petition. Hence we see no reason to interfere with this appeal and it is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.