IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4813/2007 Sajedabi Syed Ismail ..vs.. Kalekhan =================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR,J. DATE:18.6.2008. Heard Mr. V.N. Morande, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.G. Loney, Advocate for respondent. Though this petition is stated to have been filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the reliefs claimed in the petition are only under article 227of the Constitution of India. It appears that the petitioner is challenging the order of the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Akola dated 8.9.2006 by which the application of the petitioner for allowing her to pay cost of Rs.500/- which was payable within one month from the date of order dated 8.4.2006 as condition precedent for restoration of the M.J.C. No.68/2002, was rejected. The relevant order was passed in respect of the order in M.J.C.No.20/1994. The present order which is impugned in this petition is passed in M.J.C. No 103/2006. The reason for delayed payment of cost was that the applicant was poor and Pardanashin lady having no source of income and further residing at Parbhani which is far away from Akola and therefore, she could not arrange for money. According to her she has saved this Rs.500/- towards cost which she was ready to pay. This application was filed on 15.6.2006, therefore, there appears to be delay of more than two years in preferring this application for allowing her to deposit the cost. Learned Judge rejected this application observing from that the conduct of the applicant in the earlier proceedings collected from the material available on record, it can not be gathered that, the applicant was diligent all the while; in conducting the matter. According to learned Judge, the applicant was not serious in contesting the matter. It is also pointed out that she has engaged private counsel for contesting the matter. Further it has been pointed out that the respondent therein i.e. present respondent had to fight the litigation unnecessarily for the period more than 10 years and now he was enjoying the fruits of the decree. Therefore, learned Judge had rejected the application by order dated 8.9.2006. I have gone through the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge for passing the impugned order and also contents of the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to deposit the costs pursuant to order dated 8.4.04 in application filed on 15.6.2006. It is difficult to say that in that application the applicant i.e. petitioner had made out an acceptable case for late payment of Rs.500/- as costs. It is nowhere pointed out that she was not aware of the order dated 8.4.2004 . It is also not clear from the application that she was such poor that she had no source of income and she could not collect sum of Rs.500/- to pay cost for about two years. In fact it is alleged and seems from record that she was in possession of field for many years. . In these circumstances, no interference is called for in the order passed the learned Trial Judge. Accordingly the petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE smp.