1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C.A.Z.NO. 399/2011 IN L.P.A.ST.NO.7359/2011 IN W.P.NO. 807/2011 WITH M.C.A.NO.331/2011. Amit Sushil Porwal and another -VERSUS- Smt. Anagha Arun Mhaisalkar and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 15.06.2011. Heard Shri S.V. Purohit, the learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant and Shri R.D. Bhuibar, the learned Counsel for respondent no.1/caveator and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Prayer is to condone the delay of 30 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal. It is stated that in Letters Patent Appeal judgment dated 17.02.2011 as also order passed subsequently on 07.04.2011 rejecting 2 its review, are both questioned. In so far as the challenge to order passed in review is concerned, filing of appeal is within limitation, however challenge to judgment dated 17.02.2011 is belated. According to the learned Counsel, as review of the very same judgment was sought, Letters Patent Appeal came to be filed after the review was rejected. According to Shri Bhuibar, the learned Counsel for respondent, when the Letters Patent Appeal was filed it was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay. After filing i.e. since 15.04.2011 no steps were taken to get the Appeal circulated and by giving reason of pendency of Appeal, interim orders were procured from the learned Single Judge. He therefore, states that the entire conduct of the appellant/applicant is dishonest and this Court should not therefore condone the delay. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that against the judgment dated 17.02.2011 delivered by the learned Single Judge, a review was pending till 07.04.2011 and after dismissal of that Review, Letters Patent Appeal has been filed on 3 15.04.2011 challenging the judgment as also that order. In this situation, in so far as the filing of the Letters Patent Appeal is concerned, we do not find any malafides in the matter. The subsequent conduct of the appellant/applicant is not very relevant at this stage, though it's cognizance can be taken at appropriate stage. Hence, subject to it, delay is condoned. Office to register the Appeal and list the same for further consideration on 20.06.2011. Without going to the merits of the controversy, as it is informed that status quo orders passed by the learned Single Judge were in force till today and execution is already filed, we continue that status quo till 20.06.2011. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd