IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WP/831/2011 KHEERABAI GOVIND PAWAR V/S MANJITKAUR HARVINDERSINGH BINDRA AND ANR ... Shri S.V.Adwant, Advocate for petitioner and Shri Girish K.Thigale (Naik) Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri R.K.Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,J. Dated : April 15, 2011 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. The necessary details and background are already mentioned by this Court in its order dated 3.2.2011. 3. It is apparent that in the light of self operating order of this Court in Writ Petition No.6738 of 2009, dated 16.2.1983 (wrongly stated as 16.2.2003 in the order dated 3.2.2011), the trial Court could not have extended time or permission to respondent No.1 to deposit the costs. Shri Thigale, learned Advocate for respondent No.1, however, contends that respondent No.1 could have moved this Court and sought extension of time. According to him, such liberty is still open to respondent No.1 and hence this Court should not interfere in the matter. 4. It is apparent from paragraph No.5 of the order dated 16.2.2010 that such course was not open to respondent No.1. Shri Thigale, 2 WP/831/2011 learned Advocate is seeking leave of this Court to move such an application in disposed of Writ Petition Such leave cannot be granted in this matter. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the XVI Civil Judge (Junior Division) is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ... akl