1 wp3832/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3832 OF 2011 Sunita Nanasaheb Zinjurde, Age 50 years, Occupation Household, Resident of N-9, H, Plot No. 11, T.V. Center, CIDCO, Aurangabad Petitioner V E R S U S 1 The Administrator, CIDCO, Udyog Bhavan, Aurangabad, GPA to Anil Laxmanrao Deolankar, Resident of CIDCO, Aurangabad Respondents 2 Anuradha w/o Omprakash Jethliya, at present Anuradha w/o Rameshwar Mantri, Age Major, Occupation Household, Resident of Kej, Taluka Kej, District Beed 3 Shehal Omprakash Jethliya, Age Minor, Under Guardianship of respondent No.2, resident of as above 4 Satyam Omprakash Jethliya, Age Minor, Under Guardianship of respondent No. 2, resident of as above Smt P.V. Langhe, Advocate for the petitioner Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.1 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 13th October, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are formal parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By consent of both the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing and heard finally. 4. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 19th January, 2011, passed by the 2 wp3832/11 learned III Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in MARJI No. 493 of 2007. 5. The respondent No. 1 moved this application for setting aside of the exparte decree passed against them in Special Civil Suit No. 277 of 2005. It is common ground that the petitioner had filed said suit for specific performance against the respondents. Respondent No. 1 engaged an Advocate, but he did not file written statement, and due to his lethargy, the suit was disposed of exparte against respondent No.1. Thereafter, an application was made for setting aside of the exparte decree, but even for making such application there occurred delay of 360 days. The present application sought condonation of such delay. The learned Judge in his discretion, for the reasons mentioned in his order, rightly condoned the delay awarding costs of Rs.1500/- to the petitioner. The petitioner is still entitled to oppose the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure by respondent No. 1 on merits. The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/3832/11/13/10/11