1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9639 OF 2009 Rajaram Vinayak Hasabnis & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs Namdeo Sakharam Shinde & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Bhushan Walimbe i/by Smt. P.B. Walimbe for the Petitioners. -- CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The Petitioners have taken an exception to an order dated 17th January, 2009 passed by the learned District Judge by which an application for condonation of delay of about 7 months in preferring an appeal against a decree has been condoned. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners pointed out that the delay has been condoned only on the ground that the age of the first Respondent is 90 years. He submitted that in the Written Statement, his age has been disclosed as 55 years. He pointed out that the Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 26th February, 2009 by which time granted to the Respondents to pay costs has been extended without notice to the Petitioners and without hearing the Petitioners. He 2 submitted that the order of extension of time could not have been passed without hearing the Petitioners. 3. I have considered the submissions. The Petitioners have invoked extra-ordinary remedy of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A substantial justice has been done by the learned District Judge by condoning the delay of 7 months. As far as extension of time to deposit the costs is concerned, time fixed by the Appellate Court to deposit the costs expired on 16th February, 2009. On an application made by the Respondents on 26th February, 2009, the time was extended till 26th February, 2009 on the ground that the concerned Advocate had suffered an accident. It is true that in normal course, the Petitioners ought to have been heard. By exercising the powers under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the delay of only few days in depositing the amount of costs has been condoned. 4. This is not a case to interfere in exercise of powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE