1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CA NO. 462 OF 2008 in FA ST. NO. 20710 OF 2007 Mohd. Rafique Mohd. Ishaque vs. Mohd. Yusuf Mohd. Ishaque & Ors . Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 18, 2008. The matter is being considered since last few dates in view of the objection raised by the respondents about the maintainability of appeal before this Court. The appeal as filed is under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. There is delay of about 4 days in filing First Appeal and therefore, present Civil Application is filed to condone it. Shri Qazi, Advocate for the appellant/ applicant contends that this Court should condone delay and hear the matter on maintainability. Shri Thomas, Advocate for the respondents points out that delay can be considered by the Competent forum before which the appeal is maintainable. Both the parties have got different judgments to cite before this Court. However, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of 2 Vitthal Ramchandra Mali vs. Laxmi Ganpati Mali, reported at AIR 2006 Bom. 298, it is apparent that the present appeal has to be filed before the District Court as there is delegation of powers of District Judge to Civil Judges under Section 388 of said Act. Shri Quazi, Advocate for the appellant/ applicant has tried to point out provisions of Section 28-A of Bombay Civil Courts Act to state that in view of said provision, High Court can delegate powers of District Court to any Civil Judge. However, there is no notification pointed out delegating those powers to Civil Judge by the High Court. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that controversy is squarely covered by the above mentioned judgment of this Court. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks return of papers for presentation to District Court. The learned counsel further points out that interim orders granted by this Court on 14.2.2008 are in force and same should be continued till the appeal is heard by competent Court. The request is opposed by Shri Thomas, Advocate for the respondents, who contends that as delay has not been condoned, the interim orders cannot be continued. Shri Thomas further states 3 that in view of the order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, rejecting the prayer made by the present applicant and its attaining finality, present appeal is not maintainable. I find that this issue can be raised before the competent appellate forum and can be considered by it. In the circumstances, the applicant/ appellant is directed to place xerox copies of all papers on record by 7.4.2008. If such xerox copies are placed on record, the applicant/ appellant is permitted to take back the original papers from the office of this Court by said date. After the papers are taken back by said date, the applicant/ appellant to present the papers before the Competent appellate forum by 10.4.2008. The contesting respondents may appear before the competent appellate court on 10.4.2008. The competent appellate Court shall then proceed further to consider prayer for vacation or for further continuation of interim orders. Interim orders granted by this Court to continue till 15.4.2008. With these orders, present Civil Application is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.