1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8150 OF 2008 Dilshad Sultan Bohra ...Petitioner vs. Abbas Abdulhusain Kathawala & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.P.M.Havnur for the petitioner Mr.Chandrakant Chavan for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner preferred a revision application before the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes. In the said revision application, there was a delay and therefore, an application was taken out for condonation of delay. By order dated 26th September 2009, the delay in filing the revision was condoned subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.1000/-. According to the case of the petitioner, on 13th October 2008, he paid costs of Rs. 1000/- directly to the Advocate for the respondent and this fact is not disputed. Later on, an application was made by the petitioner by contending that he was under an impression that costs amount was to be directly paid to the respondent and therefore he has paid the same to the respondent. The petitioner sought extension of time to deposit the amount of costs with the court. The said application has been rejected by order dated 20th October 2008. 2 After considering the submissions made by the parties, I am of the view that a very hyper-technical approach has been adopted by the Appeal Bench of the 2 Court of Small Causes. It was pointed out that the amount of costs was paid to the Advocate for the respondent on 13th October 2008 and it was received by the said Advocate. The amount of costs was to be deposited on or before 10th October 2008. Thus, while substantially complying with the order by paying costs, there was a delay of only three days. By treating the payment of amount of costs to the Advocate for the respondent as a substantial compliance, the Appeal Bench of Court of Small Causes ought to have extended the time to pay the costs by a period of three days. Hence, this writ petition must succeed. 3 Hence, I pass the following orders : i) Impugned order dated 20th October 2008 is quashed and set aside. ii)The payment of costs to the Advocate for the respondent on 13th October 2008 shall be termed as a substantial compliance with order dated 26th September 2008. Hence, revision application shall be registered and the court will proceed to deal with the said revision application on merits in accordance with law. iii) Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE