( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1228 OF 2010 Ravishree Virbhadrarao Kandule PETITIONER VERSUS Dadasaheb Vishwanath Tiwari & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. K.S. Bhore, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. ] [DATE : 3rd May, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is challenging order dated 14th December, 2009, rendered by learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Kopargaon in Civil Misc. Application No. 12/2009. By the order impugned, the delay is condoned subject to cost of Rs. 500/-. The counsel would submit that the respondents suppressed the fact regarding pendency of application under Order-IX Rule-13 of the Civil Procedure Code. In view of “Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and another” 2005 (3) Bom.C.R. 245, it ( 2 ) appears that the respondents could not have availed both the remedies simultaneously. Moreover, the question regarding maintainability of the Misc. Appeal shall be separately considered by the first Appellate Court. Keeping all the legal aspects open, the petition is disposed of. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp1228-2010