1 wp-10510.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10510 OF 2011 Shri Vasant Bhivaji Barve and ors. : Petitioners versus Shri Subhash Bivaji Barve and ors. : Respondents. Mr. Ajay Patil i/by Mr. Sachin D Kadam for the Petitioners. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 09th December 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 24/6/2011 passed by the District Judge-1, Nashik by which order the application for condonation of delay of two years and about three months in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree came to be rejected. 2 The Petitioners herein are the original Defendants in the suit filed by the Respondents herein for partition and separate possession of the property bearing Gat No.430 situated at village Shilapur Taluka and District Nashik. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary facts. Suffice it to say that the Petitioners filed their written statement on 20/7/2006. Thereafter, it appears that the Petitioners were not appearing in the said suit. A “No cross order” came to be passed against them some time in June 2007, against which the Petitioners filed an application for setting aside the “No cross Order” on 14/8/2007 which was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/-. 2 wp-10510.11.sxw However, the said costs were not paid, and therefore, the Petitioners were not entitled to cross examine the Plaintiffs. The said suit ultimately came to be decreed on 28/9/2007. the said suit was decreed in the absence of the Petitioners. The Petitioners thereafter filed an application for setting aside the said decree on 12/1/2010 and since there was a delay for about 2 years and three months in filing the said application, the Petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay, and the principal ground stated therein was that they became aware of the said decree after they received notice of the Talathi and the Inspector of Land Records on 11/11/2009 for partition of the property in question. 3 The said Application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the Petitioners were well aware that the suit was being proceeded with as they had filed the application for setting aside the “No cross Order” on 14/8/2007 and the said application was allowed subject to payment of costs. The trial Court was therefore of the view that the Petitioners became aware of the decree being passed only in the year 2009 could not be accepted. 4 It is well settled that the delay can be condoned for good and sufficient reasons, apart from this there have to be bonafides on the part of the party seeking condonation of delay. In the instant case, the conspectus of facts as narrated above unmistakably point out that the Petitioners were aware that the suit was being proceeded with as they themselves appeared for setting 3 wp-10510.11.sxw aside the “No cross Order” by filing an application on 14/8/2007. Thereafter the said suit has been decreed on 20/9/2007 and therefore the case of the Petitioners that they were not aware of the decree being passed and became aware only in the year 2009 was rightly rejected by the trial Court as no indulgence could be shown to the Petitioners, as the ground on which condonation of delay was sought was not a bonafide ground. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]