spb/- 1 wp1202-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1202 OF 2010 Mahadu @ Mahadev Baji Bhosale ... Petitioner. V/s. Appaji Gunbarao Bhosale & Ors . ... Respondents. --- Mr. Sagar Mane i/by N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr. S.G. Karandikar for Respondent No. 1B (a) to 1 (h). ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 08th JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the legal heirs of the respondent No.1. 2 Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the petition is belated and there is no proper explanation of the delay and the petition is, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 3 The impugned order is passed on 7th November, 2003 and the present petition is filed on 7th July, 2009 i.e. after lapse of nearly six years. In my view, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. 4 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old man and was suffering from enlargement of prostate since March, 2005. He was operated in March/April 2005 and hence could not file the spb/- 2 wp1202-10.sxw petition in time. 5 Firstly enlargement of the prostate is a disease which would prevent the petitioner from carrying out his normal activities. Even there is not an averment in the petition that on account of that condition, the petitioner was unable to carry out his normal activities. The petitioner was operated on prostate in March/April, 2005. No record of any illness after the operation is produced. There is no explanation as to the delay between November, 2003 to March, 2005. Further, there is no explanation about delay caused after April, 2005 when the petitioner was operated for enlargement of the prostate. Thus the explanation offered for the delay is not satisfactory. 6 Petition is belated and as such it is rejected on this ground alone. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]