1 W.P. No. 8117.05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8117 OF 2005 Adhar S/o Dongar Marathe & Ors ..PETITIONERS. VERSUS Smt. Bebabai W/o Nago Marathe ..RESPONDENTS .. Shri U.S. Malte , Advocate for petitioners Shri P.P. Dhorde Patil, Advocate for respondent CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE:- 2nd August, 2011. PER COURT:- Heard, Shri Malte, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Dhorde Patil, learned counsel for the respondent. 2 W.P. No. 8117.05 2. Shri Malte, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court cannot resort to the provisions of 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code (“The CPC” for short), in the wake of provisions of Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC. The present respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage on his own wrong. Even the proceedings filed before the lower Appellate Court were not maintainable. The learned counsel contends that the impugned orders have been passed by the District Court in a very casual and cursory manner without considering the lapses and the laches on the part of the respondent. The said orders could not have been passed, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Shri Dhorde, learned counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned orders passed by the Court and submits that the Court has taken into consideration all the attending circumstances, while passing the orders. The issue is concerned with the immovable property, so in the interest of justice, the impugned orders are passed. 3 W.P. No. 8117.05 4. The present respondent has filed an appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the present petitioner. There is a delay in filing the appeal. As such, along with the appeal the present respondent has filed an application for condonation of delay bearing Misc. Civil Application No. 64 of 1999. The same was dismissed by the Court, in view of the fact that the present respondent failed to adduce the evidence and was absent. Vide impugned order, the Court has restored the Misc. Civil Application No. 64 of 1999 to its original position and has granted opportunity to the respondent to adduce the evidence. When orders restoring the Misc. Civil Application No. 64 of 1999 are assailed, the Appellate Court has taken into consideration the facts of the case and the reasons put- forth by the present respondent. The Court can resort to the provisions of 151 of the CPC to meet the ends of justice. 4 W.P. No. 8117.05 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Taking into account, the pendency of the matter the District Court is directed to dispose of Misc. Civil Application No. 64 of 1999 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] SDM* August-11