1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION Z. NO.373/2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST. NO.6501/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4239/2010 (D) Deorao s/o Mahadeo Mehar ...Versus... Mahadeo s/o Tukaram Mehar (Deleted) Omdeo s/o Mahadeo Mehar and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, Adv. for applicant] [Smt. B.H. Dangre, Addl. G.P. for respdt. nos.4 & 5] [Shri H.G. Katekar, Adv. h/f Shri A.M. Rizwy, Adv. for respdt. nos.6 to 9] CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : 09.11.2011. None for respondent nos.2 and 3 though they are served. Additional Government Pleader appears for respondent nos.4 and 5. Advocate Shri Katekar h/f Advocate Shri Rizwy appears for respondent nos.6 to 9. Heard learned Counsel for applicant on issue of condonation of delay. He points out that delay of 26 days is caused because of belated communication of the order. Statement is supported by affidavit and in absence of any counter 2 disputing the same, we do not find any mala fides in this matter. Hence, delay in filing appeal is condoned. Civil Application is allowed. Office to register the appeal. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST. NO.6501/2011 Letters patent appeal is taken up with consent. Heard. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that writ of certiorari was sought in the matter and challenge was to the order dated 3.7.2010 passed by the IInd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.486/1996 below application at Exh.87. By that order a counter claim was taken on record after eleven years. He is relying upon certain judgments to urge that such belated permission and acceptance of counter claim on record is contrary to settled law. He further points out that the entire controversy has arisen because of orders passed in fragmentation proceeding by Tahsildar and Taluka Inspector. Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.4 and 5 submits that the Court which has passed the impugned order was not party before the learned Single Judge. 3 Learned Counsel for respondent nos.6 to 9 points out that dispute is purely of civil nature and private one. Learned Counsel for appellant is seeking time to point out that even in such circumstances as State Government is party, the Court could have issued a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are not inclined to go into that question. As the counter claim has come on record in a suit, which has been instituted in the year 1996, we give appellant liberty to challenge the impugned order, passed by the trial Court before the competent forum, in accordance with law after suit is finally adjudicated. With this limited relief to the appellant, we dispose of this letters patent appeal. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE ssw