1 W.P. 6280/10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6280/2010 Janabai w/o Sambhaji Kapate & others Vs. Gangabai w/o Marotrao Rajegore Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni with Smt. Rashmi S. Kulkarni, Advocates for respondent sole. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 2nd May, 2011. PER COURT: 1. This writ petition is filed against order dated 04/02/2010 passed by the learned District Judge Nanded, in R.C.A. No. 136/2004. R.C.A. No. 136/2004 was filed by the petitioners here. The appeal was dismissed for default, on 16/11/2007. The petitioners therefore took out a Misc. Civil Application requiring judicial inquiry No. 187/2007 before learned District Judge – 2 Nanded. But the same was also dismissed on 19th September, 2008. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the petitioners filed appeal from Order No. 11/2009 before this Court and on 10/04/2009 the appeal was allowed with a direction that the petitioners should deposit Rs.5,000/- as cost, payable to the respondent within four weeks. The order further reads that in case such deposit is made in time, the appeal No. 136/2004 would be restored. The order further mentioned that the parties shall appear before the lower appellate Court on 10th November, 2009. From the order dated 10th September, 2009, it is clear that the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- as cost payable to the respondent within 2 W.P. 6280/10 four weeks from 10th September, 2009. Admittedly, the cost was not deposited as directed. The petitioner for the first time after 10th September, 2009, appeared before the lower appellate Court on 9th November, 2009 with a request to permit them to deposit the cost amount. The learned judge refused to oblige them holding that the time limit for depositing the cost, had long back been expired. Admittedly, before expiry of four weeks’ time, the petitioner had not approached this court seeking extension of time limit, neither the petitioners deposited the cost in this Court within four weeks. By filing this writ petition now the petitioners can not seek extension of the time granted by this Court vide order dated 10/04/2009. The order dated 10th September, 2009 of this Court has been acted upon and pursuant to its effect, learned judge of the lower appellate Court refused to revive and hear the dismissed appeal No.136/2004. In view of all this, it becomes clear that the R.C.A. No.136/2004 was never restored. Writ petition should therefore fail. The petition is dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/2011/May2/wp6280.10