1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.79/2010 in Writ Petition No.2541/2009 ( Shri Vithal Raut ..V/s.. Shri Shantaram Barapatre ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.S. Tiwari & Mr. Rohit Fulzele, Advocate for appellant. Mr. B.N. Mohta with Mr. R.D. Najbile, Advocates for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 8th February, 2010. 1. Admit. Learned Advocate Mr.B.N. Mohta waives service. 2. Heard the learned Advocate and the respondent for final disposal by consent. 3. This is a letters patent appeal preferred by the original defendant challenging the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2541/2009 dated 7th December 2009. 2 4. Present appellant had filed said writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 28th of March 2009 rejecting his application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal. The writ petition was dismissed. 5. In the course of the arguments, the learned Advocte for the respondent Mr. B.N. Mohta agrees to the position that the suit is for specific performance of contract for disclosed consideration of Rs.2,72,000/- the suit has been valued at Rs.2,73,000/- and as such the learned District Judge lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal sought to be preferred by the appellant. He further states that as such the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal filed by the appellant. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the concession of the learned Advocate for the respondent, we find that as the learned District Judge lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the first appeal, the application for condonation of delay also was not maintainable before the learned District Judge. In the result, the order passed 3 by the learned Single Judge has no legal effects. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant as such prays setting aside order passed by learned Single Judge as well by District Court and direction for return of the appeal memo as well the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 8. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7th December 2009 and the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 28th March 2009 are quashed and set aside. 9. The learned District Judge is directed to return the appeal memo along with annexures as well as the application for condonation of delay to the appellant in accordance with law. 10. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Parties are directed to bear own costs. Judge Judge Tambaskar.