1 wp 1444.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1444 OF 2010 Babasaheb Vithalrao Gharat .. Petitioner Versus Sow. Mathurabai W/o Vithal Ghodke and another .. Respondents Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. R. Kedar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 11TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondent had filed suit for partition and separate possession which came to be decreed. Against that the present petitioners had filed appeal before the District Court bearing R.C.A. No. 154/1985. The said appeal came to be dismissed for default on 03.10.1996. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for re-admission of appeal along with an application for condonation of delay on or about 27 th February, 2009. The said application is rejected by the District Court. 2 wp 1444.10 Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. 2. Shri V. D. Salunke, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that on technical grounds, the appeal was dismissed i. e. for non payment of paper book charges. In fact, the advocate of petitioners did not communicate the said fact to the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 was looking after the matter and other petitioners were busy in their work and so did not have time to look after the litigation. It is submitted that if the advocate would have informed them, then the petitioners would naturally have deposited the petty amount of paper book charges. The learned counsel submits that the dispute is in respect of immovable property and the petitioners deserve to be given an opportunity to prosecute the appeal on merits. 3. Shri Kedar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supports the order passed by the Court below and submits that it is a case of inordinate delay of 12 years and 9 months. Nothing is stated about the diligence on the part of petitioners. 4. No doubt, the Courts are normally liberal in construing an application for condonation of delay. In the present case, the 3 wp 1444.10 delay is of 12 years and 9 months. The only cause stated in the application is that the advocate of petitioners did not inform the petitioners about the deposit of paper book charges and that the petitioner No. 1 was looking after the litigation on behalf of other petitioners and other petitioners did not have time to look after the litigation. There is nothing on record to show that during this period, the petitioners at any point of time tried to contact their advocate regarding the pendency of the appeal. The grounds stated by no stretch of imagination can be said to be sufficient cause. The lower Appellate Court while passing the impugned order has considered these aspects. Moreover, the dispute was against the natural mother of the petitioners. 5. In the light of above, I do not see any error committed by the Court below while passing the impugned order. The writ petition as such, is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11