{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6920 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO.10119 OF 2008 Deogir s/o Madhav Giri APPLICANT VERSUS Marathwada Gramin Bank Ltd., & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. S.S.Halkude, Advocate for applicant Mr. M.M.Patil (Beedkar) Advocate for respondent No.1 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 17 th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard. By this application the applicant has prayed to condone delay of 929 days caused in preferring the appeal from order challenging the judgment and order dated 21.07.2005 passed in M.A. No.195/2004. It appears that initially the applicant has preferred a writ petition No.8387/2005 challenging the said order. The writ petition was withdrawn with permission to move the AO under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, AO came to be filed on 06.05.2008. Thus, it is apparent that the delay is unintentional as the applicant has filed proceedings before {2} wrong forum. In the premise, the delay which is not intentional, needs to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “A” and “B” and stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/ca6920-08 {3} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO.10119 OF 2008 Deogir s/o Madhav Giri APPLICANT VERSUS Marathwada Gramin Bank Ltd., & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. S.S.Halkude, Advocate for applicant Mr. M.M.Patil (Beedkar) Advocate for respondent No.1 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 17 th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard. Issue notice to respondents. Mr.M.M.Patil, accepts notice for respondent No.1. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/ca6920-08