1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3694 OF 2009 Office notes, office memoranda of Corum, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s Judge’s orders. 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the Order passed by the District Judge – 3, Dhule dated 17/1/2009, vide which an application filed by the present petitioner for condonation of delay in preferring Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned 3rd Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Dhule in R.C.S. No. 13 of 2006 dated 9/4/2008 came to be rejected. 2. In the present case, learned trial Judge found that though the petitioner was served with 2 the Suit summons and though she filed Written Statement, thereafter she persistently remained absent. As such, the counsel was required to withdraw his appearance. The Court, therefore, sue motu issued notice to the petitioner, which was also served on her on 31/8/2007. In spite of that, the petitioner did not remain present and as such the Suit came to be decreed exparte on 9/4/2008. Even thereafter, for considerable time, the petitioner did not take any steps to prefer an Appeal. 3. From the perusal of the Order, it would reveal that the learned Appellate Court has given the finding that the petitioner failed to establish that she was prevented from approaching the Court within prescribed limitation due to just and sufficient grounds. From the perusal of the reasons, it can not be said that the finding given by the learned trial Court is perverse. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the said 3 order in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. DATE : 06/07/2009 [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP3694.09 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12