1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.176 OF 2007. Maruti S/o Dagadu Ghodke ... Petitioner. Versus Balika W/o Ramesh Sontakke and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.K.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 19.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The issue involved in the petition is short one. The petitioner filed delay condonation application alongwith appeal in the District Court, Osmanabad. There was delay of 93 2 days in filing of the appeal. The learned Adhoc Additional District Judge allowed the application for delay condonation (Misc. Civil Application No.141/2004) subject to condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) on or before 14.8.2006, as per the order dated 2l.7.2006. He cold not deposit the amount within the given time frame and sought extension of the time. The learned Adhoc Additional District Judge rejected the request and declined to register the appeal. 3. The time can be extended in view of Section 148 of the C.P.C. if it is granted by the Court. It is only when the time is fixed by the parties themselves that extension may not be granted unilaterally. In the present case, the first appellate Court had granted time to deposit the amount. The petitioner could not be thrown out of the Court only on the ground of technicality of short delay in depositing of the amount. Considering these aspects, I am inclined to hold that the time could be extended reasonably having regard to the circumstances 3 placed on record. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner be allowed to deposit the amount shown in the impugned order within a period of three (3) weeks and thereafter the appeal be registered. Liberty to the Respondents to seek review if any illegality could be pointed out. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp17607