1 Anando IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1879 OF 2009 Anil Brijlal Aggarwal & anr. ..Petitioners V/s. Central Bank of India & ors ..Respondents Mr.Dipan Merchant, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.Tolat i/b.M/s.L.C.Tolat & Co., Advocate, for the Petitioners Ms.Suruchi Multani with Ms.Fatima Lakdawala & Ms.Hetal Khimasia, Advocate, for the Respondents CORAM : J. N. PATEL & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition challenges the Order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The present Petitioners had preferred an Appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and filed an Application 2 for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. In the said appeal the Appellants had challenged the Order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 31st March, 2005. It was the contention of the Petitioner/Appellant that he was not aware of the Order passed in as much as he was suffering from various ailments. 3. The learned Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal considered the submissions made before him and also gave an opportunity to the Petitioner/Appellant to file an Additional Affidavit to make out the case. 4. The learned Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has considered all these aspects and has found that no sufficient ground has been made out for condonation of delay in filing the said Appeal. He has found that the ailment to which the 3 Petitioner/Appellant makes a reference is not shown to be continued till filing of the Appeal. In fact this is not even disputed by the Appellant before us. 5. We concur with the observation of the Appellate Tribunal that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. There is no proper explanation. 6. In these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. (J. N. PATEL, J.) (C. L. PANGARKAR, J.)