1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Civil Application No.388 of 2009. In L.P.A.ST.NO.7992 OF 2009 IN W.P. NO.5315 OF 2008 (D). Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri D.M. Upadhye, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Asawari Palsodkar, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M.REIS, JJ Dated : 3rd AUGUST, 2009. 1. Prayer is to condone the delay of 23 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal. 2. After hearing both the learned Counsel, though the reason is not specifically mentioned in the application, we find that the wrong calculations on the part of the concerned Advocate appears to be the ground for delay. Hence, though Advocate Ms Palsodkar is opposing the prayer, we condone the delay. 3. Office to register Letters Patent Appeal. L.P.A. ST.NO.7992 OF 2009 IN WP NO.5315/08 (D). 4. On last occasion, Advocate Mr. Upadhye pointed out that the matter before the Trial Court had proceeded further and final arguments are already advanced. 5. Accordingly, we have recorded those development 2 in our order dated 21-7-2009. The order challenged in the L.P.A., is interlocutory order and the appellant/plaintiff is seeking to enter into the witness box to avoid any confusion as she has examined only the power of attorney. 6. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2005 SC page 439 in case of Janki Bodhwani appears to be the ground for challenging that order. 7. In the present circumstances, when the Trial Court has already proceeded and heard final arguments in part, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in L.P.A. The appellant is always at liberty to challenge the said order in Regular Civil Appeal if occasion therefore, arises. 8. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/