1 wp9308-10 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9308 OF 2010 Smt. Maya Shrikrishna Walke ... Petitioner Versus Suresh Ramchandra Walke and others ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Karnik the petitioner Mr. E.A. Sasi for respondent no.1 CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd September, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Karnik, appeared for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Sasi, appeared on behalf of respondent no.1 who is a contesting respondent. The petition is taken up for hearing. Even otherwise, looking to the impugned order, I am of the view that the other respondents, who are non contesting, need not be before the Court. 3. The learned Principal District Judge, Singhdurg-Oras, by his order dated 22nd February, 2010, condoned the delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24th November, 2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kankavali, in Regular Civil Sui NO. 63 of 2002. He had directed the petitioner to deposit a cost of Rs.5000/- in the Court on or before 8th March, 2010. 2 wp9308-10 The said cost could not be deposited on or before 8th March, 2010 and that it was sought to be deposited on 9th March, 2010. Eventually, there was delay of only one day in depositing the cost. The Petitioner, therefore, filed an application Exh.45 on 9th March, 2010, itself and prayed for condonation of delay to deposit the cost. This application was rejected by the learned Principal District Judge, by his order dated 9th March, 2010, which reads thus: "Time was granted by conditional order till 08/03/2010. The delay condonation application came to be dismissed on 04/08/2010 on failure to deposers cost. The application is not tenable. Rejected.' Against this order, the present petition is filed. 4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 5. If there was delay of only one day in depositing the amount, the learned Principal District Judge should have taken a practical view of the matter and he should have condoned the delay. It was unnecessary for him to adhere to the time schedule. He should have understood the difficulties of the litigant in the matter of approaching the Court for the purpose of depositing the amount. In my view, the impugned order is required to be set aside. Hence following order is passed to dispose of 3 wp9308-10 this petition: i. Order dated 9th March, 2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge below Exh.45 in Misc. Application No.34 of 2007 is set aside. ii. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of cost as per the order dated 22nd February, 2010 on or before 5th October, 2011. 6. Since the petitioner approached this court for setting aside the order dated 9th March, 2010 by filing this petition on 27th October, 2010, the petitioner will have to pay cost to respondent No.1 who was required to appear before this Court. Accordingly the petitioner shall pay to respondent no.1, cost of Rs.2, 000/- so far as this petition is concerned. The cost amount be deposited in the District Court and the respondent no.1 can withdraw the amount from the District Court. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)