1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application No. CAC 3/2009 (Vijay Radheshyam Kedia VERSUS Madhusudan Satyanarayan Tibdewal) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D.V. Chauhan, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Thakkar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 6, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this civil application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 148 days in filing the revision application. It is stated in the application that the applicant had wrongly preferred an appeal against the composite order granting an injunction in favour of the non-applicant and rejecting an application filed by the applicant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge, Khamgaon. According to the applicant, the applicant was bona fide prosecuting the remedy before the wrong forum and was now advised to prefer a revision before this Court. It is the case of the applicant that the order passed by the 2 District Judge, Khamgaon is without jurisdiction and is non est. The learned counsel for the non-applicant strongly opposes the prayer made in the civil application and relies on the reply filed on behalf of the non- applicant to point out that the applicant had not preferred an appeal before the District Judge against the order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the statement made in paragraph 2 of this application that the applicant was prosecuting the remedy before the wrong forum is incorrect. I have perused the appeal memo, which is filed by the non-applicant along with the reply to the civil application. From a perusal of the contents of the appeal memo and the judgment delivered by the District Judge on 29.12.2008 it appears that the appeal was preferred by the applicant against the composite order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and granting an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 It appears that there is sufficient cause in belatedly filing the revision application before this Court. The prayer made in this civil application is, therefore, granted. The delay in filing the civil revision application is condoned. The question of tenability of the civil revision application or about the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Khamgaon to decide the appeal, would, however, remain open. The civil application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE APTE