1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5388 OF 2008 The Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner Through its Branch Manager Versus Sau. Pramilabai w/o Fulchand Waghchaure and another ...Respondent ..... Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, advocate for the petitioner Mr. M.B. Sandanshiv, advocate for respondent No. 1 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 20TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.4.2008 passed below Exh.18 in Misc. Application No.25 of 2008 by the District Judge, Latur. 2 It is not necessary to go into the details of the fact. Suffice it to say that the application filed by the respondent herein for condonation of delay of about 900 and some odd days, has been allowed by the court below and being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to 2 the contents of the application, which was filed before the court below for condonation of delay and submitted that general averments are made and no specific averments are made in the application. Though the ground of ill health is mentioned in the application, the application was not accompanied by the medical certificate and the respondent filed medical certificate subsequently. Learned counsel further submitted that there was inordinate delay and the court should not have condoned the same in view of non disclosure of sufficient cause in the application, therefore, learned counsel submit that writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has invited my attention to the reasons recorded by the court below and submitted that taking over all view of the matter and taking into consideration the medical ground, the court has condoned the delay by directing the respondent to pay Rs.2000/- towards the costs. Therefore, this court may not interfere in the writ jurisdiction. 5 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, and upon perusal of the reasons recorded by the court below,I am of the view that no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction. The court has merely considered the medical ground raised by the respondent therein and taking over all view of the matter, has condoned the delay. It is true that the length of delay caused in filing application was inordinate, however, the length of delay is one of the consideration while entertaining the application for condonation of delay. But the concern court to take in to consideration over all averments and tenore of the application for 3 condonation of delay. 6 Viewed from this angle, the court below was justified in entertaining the application for condonation of delay. I find some substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that some observations by the learned Judge that because of condonation of delay, no prejudice would be caused to the other side was unwarranted. 6 Taking over all view of the matter and after perusal of the reasons given by the court below, I do not find this is a case where this court should exercise its writ jurisdiction. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. 7 Both the learned counsel have jointly prays for early disposal of the Misc. Application No.25 of 2008 pending before the District Judge, Latur. The prayer is reasonable. Accordingly, the District Judge, Latur is directed to hear and dispose of the proceeding of Misc. Application No.25 of 2008 as early as possible and preferably within six month from today. (S.S. SHINDE, J). rlj/