1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8227 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. A.L.Tikle, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 2. [ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. ] DATE : 08/12/2009. PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the District Judge – 2, Osmanabad dated 29/9/2009, vide which an application filed by the present petitioner for condonation of delay in challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhoom dated 8/3/2007, thereby directing return of plaint for presentation of the same before proper Court, came to be rejected. 2. Mr. Tikle, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the learned trial court has failed to take into consideration that the 2 relevant date for considering the application for condonation of delay is from the expiry of the period of limitation and not from the date of original order. He submits that the applicant is required only to explain the delay after the limitation period is expired. 3. Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the learned trial court has properly exercised discretion and as such no interference is warranted. 4. Accepting for a moment, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the explanation for delay has to be for the period even after expiry of limitation, in the present case, the order which was impugned in the Appeal, was passed on 8/3/2007. The period of Appeal provided is of 30 days. As such, the period of limitation would expire on 8/4/2007. No explanation is given for not filing Appeal after the said date till 24/5/2007. The only explanation is that between the period from 24/5/2007 to 14/6/2007, the petitioner was suffering from illness. As such, it 3 can clearly be seen that there is no explanation for not filing Appeal from 8/4/2007 to 24/5/2007. 5. It can thus be seen that the reasonings given by the learned appellate court for arriving at the finding that the applicant/petitioner had failed to make out a case of “ sufficient cause ” for not filing Appeal within limitation, can not be said to be perverse. Hence, rejected. [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP8227.09