1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13431 OF 2011 IN W.P.NO.5590 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8445 OF 2011. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.P.V.Barde, advocate for the applicant and for petitioners in W.P. Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 16.11.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicants in the Civil Application and the petitioner in W.P.No.8445/2011 had earlier filed Writ Petition No.5590/2011, assailing the order dated 8.7.2011, thereby closing the evidence of the petitioners/defendants. This Court vide order dated 23.9.2011 had allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the said order on condition that the petitioner pays costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) to the plaintiffs within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of the said order. It seems, the petitioners failed to comply 2 the said order and the cost was not deposited within stipulated period. As such the defendants filed an application for extension of time to deposit cost and for acceptance of the cost before the trial Court. So also the plaintiffs moved an application Exh.198 seeking relief that the matter be kept for final arguments. The trial Court allowed the application Exh.198 filed by the plaintiffs and rejected the application filed by the present petitioners. Against the said order, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.8445/2011. So also have prayed for extension of time to deposit the said cost in C.A.No. 13431/11. 3. Mr.Gunale, learned counsel strongly resists the Writ Petition and the application for extension of time contending that it is a case of gross negligence in not depositing the amount. The trial Court had no jurisdiction to accept the amount after the period stipulated by this Court to deposit the cost had lapsed and the trial Court had rightly kept the matter for final arguments. Learned counsel contends that deliberately the defendants are prolonging the matter and creating impediment in the disposal of the suit. Earlier also a liberal approach was taken and opportunity was given to the defendants to adduce the evidence. Now the defendants can not be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels. 3 5. The trial Court could not have allowed the application filed by the petitioners herein for acceptance of the amount as it was not deposited within the time stipulated by this Court and so no fault can be found in the order passed by the trial Court. 6. However, the applicants have also moved Civil Application for extension of time to deposit cost as directed by the Court. The applicants have tried to give reasons. 7. The suit involves the rights of the parties in an immovable property. The suit is substantive suit for partition and separate possession. Though there are laches on the part of the applicants, taking into account the nature of the suit, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the applicants and extend the time to deposit the cost of Rs.3,000/'- (Rupees three thousand) as directed by order dated 23.9.2011. However, the applicants are also required to be penalised for the laches and the non-applicants deserve to be compensated for the delay. 8. In the result, I pass the following order : (i) The Civil Application NO.13431/2011 filed in W.P.No. 5590/2011 is allowed. Time to deposit the cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) as directed by this Court vide order dated 23.9.2011, passed in W.P.No.5590/2011 is extended by a period of two (2) weeks from today on condition that the applicants shall additionally pay cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) to the 4 plaintiffs within a period of two (2) weeks from today i.e. the applicants shall pay total cost of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) to the plainitffs within a period of two (2) weeks from today. The Civil Application No.13431/2011 in W.P.No.5590/11 is accordingly allowed in above terms. (ii) In view of the fact that the Civil Application for extension of time is allowed, the order impugned in W.P.No.8445/2011 also would not survive and consequently, stands set aside. The Writ Petition and the Civil Application also disposed of. Other directions contained in order dated 23.9.2011 in W.P.No.5590/2011 are kept intact. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.16.11.2011. asp/office/Ca13431.11 5