( 1 ) wp11027.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11027 OF 2010 Vilas s/o. Vithalrao Lonkar .. Petitioner Versus Vilas s/o. Dagdoba Lonkar & Anr. .. Respondents Shri P.N. Kalani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Lomte, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 29.03.2011 P.C. :- 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was prohibited by just and sufficient reasons from remaining present before the Trial Court on 09.09.2008, when his application for condonation of delay of one day in filing the restoration application came to be dismissed in default. Adv. Shri Kalani for the petitioner wants to rely upon certain precedents to substantiate his contention. Adv. Shri Lomte relies upon judgment of Single Judge of this Court reported in 2008 (1) B.C.R. 718, to urge that there is no provision for condoning such delay. ( 2 ) wp11027.10 2. As the petitioner has remedy of approaching the same Court for setting aside dismissal in default, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. With liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Trial Court only in this respect, the present writ petition is disposed of. 3. It is made clear that the rival contentions of the parties on merit are kept open for consideration by that Court. [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] snk/2011/MAR11/wp11027.10