( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1311 OF 2010 Narmadabai w/o Deorao Jadhav PETITIONER VERSUS Sarlabai w/o Sukhdeo Jadhav RESPONDENT ..... Mr. R.V. Gore, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th May, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Though served as per affidavit of service filed by the petitioner’s husband, in his capacity as Power of Attorney, yet, the respondent has remained absent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 18th January, 2010, rendered by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I, Aurangabad in MARJI Application ( 2 ) No. 196/2006. By that order, the learned Adhoc District Judge-I condoned the delay of 16 days on condition that if amount of cost of Rs. 2500/- will not be deposited within one month, then the petitioner’s delay condonation application will be deemed as dismissed. The petitioner filed application on 18th January, 2010 for extension of time as there was further delay of 14 days in making the compliance. The learned Adhoc District Judge rejected her application for extension of time by passing following cryptic order. “ O Seen clause 3 of the order. Application is rejected. Sd/- 18.1.10 “ 3. It is important to note that the learned Adhoc District Judge did not assign any reason while rejecting the application except that such was a condition enumerated in the earlier order. The extension of time was sought under section 148 of the Code of Civil ( 3 ) Procedure. It was obviously the duty of the learned Adhoc District Judge to examine whether the request could be considered within the ambit of section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The discretion available to the Court must be judiciously exercised. The impugned order reflects non-application of judicial mind. The petitioner is old aged woman. It appears from the averments in the application that she explained the reasons for the delay caused in depositing of the cost amount. She alleged that she was at Bombay due to serious illness of her brother. In such a matter, liberal approach is required to be taken. The time cannot be extended by the Court if it is fixed by the parties by their mutual agreement. Still, however, if the Court itself has provided for some time, then it is within the discretion of the Court to extend the time if some reasonable cause is shown. The procedural cobwebs are not to scuttle the right to seek justice. The impugned order, looked from any angle, is unsustainable. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed for ( 4 ) extension of time is granted. The petitioner to deposit the amount of cost of Rs. 2500/-, as ordered, within two (2) weeks. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp1311-10