1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.465/2011 in Writ Petition No.2507/2011 (D) [Anil Badrinath Mandve .vrs. Ku. Vishakha d/o Madan Deshbhratar] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2011. Heard Shri O.D. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri A.H. Laddhad, learned counsel for the respondent. Advocate Shri Laddhad points out that after learned Single Judge delivered impugned order, petitioner/appellant sought time to vacate and the same was granted till 31st October, 2011 subject to furnishing usual undertaking. According to him, on this ground, letters patent appeal is not maintainable. He contends that undertaking is still not filed. He further points out that the District Judge as also Small Causes Court were not joined as party respondent before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, Letters 2 Patent Appeal is not tenable. Advocate Shri Jain states that undertaking has already been filed with the registry. We find that when learned Single Judge passed orders, time was sought to vacate and accordingly time till 31st October, 2011 had been given subject to filing of undertaking. We accept the statement of Advocate Shri Jain that undertaking accordingly been furnished. This petition, as filed, was only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the courts were also not joined as party respondent. The learned Single Judge has in impugned order found that it was under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, even on this ground, Letters Patent Appeal is misconceived. Also LPA could not have been filed as appellant/petitioner has acquiesced in order of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we dispose of present LPA as not maintainable. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande