( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1344 OF 2010 Shri Pandurang Eknath Patil PETITIONER VERSUS Smt. Shobhabai Kashinath Wani & another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. S.A. Pradhan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.V. Wani, advocate for the respondent No. 1. Mr. S.R. Barlinge, advocate for the respondent No. 2. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 18th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The suit filed by the respondent No. 1 was closed for judgement when the application was submitted by the petitioner for allowing him to deposit cost of Rs. 200/- which was directed to be paid as per order below application (Exh-118) whereby he was permitted to file written statement. He had not deposited the cost for seven (7) years after passing of the order on the said application. The delay of seven (7) years itself is sufficient reason to reject such application. It is not known as to why the learned Civil Judge has not yet decided the suit. The Registrar (Judicial) ( 2 ) to call for explanation of the concerned Civil Judge as to why the suit is not decided though the application (Exh-303) is rejected on 09-10-2009. The explanation to be called and placed before this Court within three (3) weeks. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer appeal against the exparte decree, if passed, or may avail any other remedy like filing application for setting aside the decree. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp1344-10