1 INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6803/2011 Coir Board Petitioner Vs. Shwetal Dave Respondent Mr.Vikram A.Goel for applicant CORAM-G.S.GODBOLE,J. DATE - 23rd SEPTEMBER,2011 P.C. . Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. 2 Since the advocate for the petitioner claims that there is an extreme urgency as the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court is proceeding with the hearing of Misc.Application No.81/2011 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In that application, the respondent therein (Original Plaintiff) was required to file an affidavit in reply opposing the delay condonation application and on 25/7/2011 an order was passed that the application be proceed in the absence of reply. Within three days i.e. on 28/7/2011 advocate for the respondent filed an application for setting aside the earlier order dated 25/7/2011 and permission to file affidavit in reply which was enclosed 2 with the application. This application was opposed by the applicant by filing reply and by impugned order dated 5/8/2011, the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has allowed the application and permitted the respondent to file reply to the application for condonation of delay. Mr.Goel relies on the following judgments of the Supreme Court. 1. Pipe Arts India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Gangadhar N.Golamare 2008(6) Mah.L.J.,280 ; 2. A.P.M.C.V/s Quasami Janab Ajmatalla Salamulla & Anr.(2009)9 S.C.C.,219; 3. Asstt.Commissioner C.T.D.V/s M/sShukla & Bors. J.T.2010(4) S.C.,35; 4. M/s Kranti Ass.Pvt.Ltd.V/s Sh.Masood A.Khan & Ors. J.T. 2010 (9) S.C.,362. 3 Mr.Goel contends that since the order is cryptic and the details are not given, the same is liable to be set aside. 4 I have considered the submissions. All the judgments of the Supreme Court deal with the cases where the judicial proceedings affecting substantive rights had been decided by the Court with cryptic 3 order and in that context such practice was deprecated. In the present case all that has been done is that the respondent has been permitted to file reply to the application for condonation of delay. This order does not decide any rights of the parties. 5 The impugned order is purely interlocutory and does not call for any interference. The petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. G.S.GODBOLE,J.