1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1564 OF 2010 Vitthal Shankar Khedekar since deceased through his legal heirs Petitioner versus Ganu Ganpat Khedekar since deceased through his legal heirs Respondents Vinod Jadhav i/by Prabhakar Jadhav for petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 05th March 2010 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioners who are some of the defendants in a suit filed by the contesting respondents preferred an appeal against decree for partition passed after a lapse of thirteen years. There was delay of about thirteen years in preferring the appeal. By the impugned order, the application for condonation of delay preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited 2 my attention to the averments made in the application. He pointed out that the predecessors of the petitioners did not contest the suit on account of assurance given by the original plaintiffs that they will be given proper shares in the suit property. He submitted that though it is not mentioned in the application, the father of the petitioner nos.1a to 1d expired. He submitted that the Appellate Court has committed factual error by observing that the petitioners were the parties in Suit Nos.1117of 1997 and 1088 of 1996. He submitted that the appellate Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach and condoned the delay. He submitted that length of delay was irrelevant and delay ought to have been condoned. 3. I have considered the submissions. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay shows that according to the petitioners, the plaintiffs had assured that in the suit they will be given equal share in all the properties and the Court will pass the order accordingly. However, after the decree was passed, it was realized that the petitioners were not given the share in certain properties. It must be stated here that the suit of the year 1989 remained pending till 27th June 1996 and the appeal was preferred in March 2009 against the decree passed on 29th June 1996. Apart from stating that the petitioners were given assurance by the plaintiffs that proper share will be given to them by the Court, only material averments contained 3 in the application are in paragraph 6 which read thus :- "6. There is a delay of around 13 years in challenging the decree and judgment passed in the RCS No.1924/89. The delay had been caused due to illiteracy and lack of legal knowledge. A the same time, if the delay is not condoned, the Applicants will not get their share in the said lands and they will be deprived of their legitimate share in the property described in 1(a) and (b) hence in the interest of justice the delay of around 13 years is required to be condoned therefore the applicants have submitted this application for condonation of delay before Hon'ble Court." 4. Taking the application for condonation of delay as it is, this is a case where there is absolutely no explanation for gross delay of thirteen years for challenging the decree for partition. The main reason is illiteracy and lack of legal knowledge. However, the fact remains that at all relevant time the petitioners were having knowledge of pendency of the suit. No fault can be found in the impugned order. The writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)