cra94.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2011 Bhausaheb s/o Sonyabapu Vikhe & another .. APPLICANTS VERSUS Parvat /o Sonyabapu Vikhe & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. R.A. Tambe, advocate for the applicants. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the revision applicants. 2 Applicants are raising exception to the order passed by the District Judge – 1, Kopargaon in Application no. 26/2010 decided on 18-1-2011. The application came to be allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.750/-. 3 I have perused the order passed by the District Judge – 1, Kopargaon. Respondents /original plaintiffs preferred appeal against the judgment and cra94.11 2 decree passed by the trial court. The suit presented before the trial court was in respect of grant of decree for partition and separate possession of the immovable property. Considering the nature of dispute and considering all the relevant circumstances, the learned District Judge – 1, Kopargaon has exercised discretion in favour of the original plaintiffs / respondents herein while condoning delay. I do not deem it necessary to cause interference in the discretionary order passed by learned District Judge – 1, Kopargaon, exercising discretion in favour of respondents herein in condoning delay in presenting appeal raising exception to the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Civil revision application is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb