1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1779 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. D.B. Patil for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 14TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 8th December 2008 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. 3. The delay is of more than 4 years. It is true that mere length of delay is not a ground for rejecting the application for condonation of delay. But the greater is the delay greater is the 2 requirement of explaining of the cause for the delay. In the present case, the petitioner has not sufficiently explained the cause of delay. Counsel for the petitioner submitted economic difficulty was cause for the delay. The petitioner had previously litigated upto the Supreme Court and had engaged advocates in all courts. The petitioner appears to possess sufficient means and it is not his case that all his finances were exhausted in the previous round of litigation. According to the counsel for the petitioner, he has a good case on merits. That by itself cannot be considered as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. 4. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there was no sufficient cause for the delay. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, I see no reason to interfere in this finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) 3