1 905.wp9804.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9804 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2689 OF 2011 Reeta Harshad Kothari. ....Petitioner Vs. Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. ....Respondent. Ms. Trupti Gohil, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Valjee, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- DECEMBER 16, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Valjee waives service on behalf of the Respondent. 2. The facts which are admitted show that the Petitioner has been negligent in prosecuting the Appeal consistently. By the impugned order dated 30/9/2011 passed below Exh. 1, Application for condonation of delay was dismissed in default by saddling costs of Rs. 5000/-. The Petitioner had filed an Application Exh. 10 on the same day. However, that has also been dismissed. 2 905.wp9804.11 3. Since the Petitioner has filed application on the same day, the learned President of the Appellate Court ought to have taken lenient view and ought have restored the Mis. Application by imposing cost. 4. In view of this, case for interference is made out. The impugned orders dated 30/9/2011 passed by the learned President of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai below Exh. 1 and Exh. 10 are quashed and set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent within three weeks from today either by depositing in court or to be paid directly to the Respondent Bank. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. Hearing of M.A. is expedited and is to be heard and decided on or before 31st January, 2012. Interim order operating in favour of the Petitioner in the delay condonation application shall stand revived. 5. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in Civil Application, the same is disposed off accordingly. All the parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)