1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.494 OF 2009. Shankar S/o Laxman Mane ... Petitioner. Versus Anusayabai W/o Shankar Mane and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.E.S.Murge, advocate holding for Mr.A.S.Bayas, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.B.Gastgar, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 14.09.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns order rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Nilanga, in Cri.M.A.No.2/2008, wbereby his delay condonation application came to be rejected. 2 2. The Respondents filed application bearing Cri.M.A.No.326/2005 for maintenance U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. Though, the present petitioner was duly served, yet, he did not appear in the said proceedings. The maintenance proceedings came to be decided exparte against him. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 each were granted Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) p.m. as separate maintenance allowance. They lateron filed Criminal Misc. Application No.140/2006 for recovery of the said amount. The notice of the said application was duly served on him. 3. The case of the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge was that he learnt about the exparte order of maintenance allowance when he received notice of the recovery proceedings. He asserted that he had given V.P. to one Mr.Mare, advocate who did not appear in the maintenance proceedings to represent him and as such he was set exparte. He submitted that he was not intentionally absent in the said proceedings. He submitted that the delay of 489 days had occurred in filing of the Revision 3 Application and was unintentional. He sought condonation of the same. The learned Sessions Judge, did not find favour with him and dismissed the application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. There are two important aspects of the matter. First, the applicant did not file affidavit of Mr.Mare, advocate to show that he was engaged to conduct the matter before the trial Court. He has not placed on record any shred of evidence to infer that Mr.N.N.Mare, was engaged on his behalf but it was due to laches of the said advocate the exparte decision was rendered against him. Secondly, the learned Sessions Judge noticed that notice of recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondents vide Criminal M.A.No.140/2006 was duly served on the petitioner on 28.12.2006. He preferred the Revision Application on 4.2.2008. Obviously, the delay between 28.12.2006 to 4.2.2008 ought to have been properly explained by him. The petitioner did not, however, explain that delay 4 to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions. The petitioner appears to be lethargic and, therefore, the impuned order is quite legal and proper. On behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate referred to "Lachhiram Chudiwala (H.U.F.) Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Limited" 2007 (1) Mh.L.J.315, wherein a Single Bench of this Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" as employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in the meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. There can not be two opinion that liberal construction of Section 5 is required to be adopted. At the same time where there is really no sufficient cause as such, then it would not be desirable to fill up the lacuna and find out some cause to brand it as sufficient one for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in "State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others" 2008 (4) ALL MR 856 held that such explanation of "procedural hassles" can not 5 be regarded as sufficient. In "Special Land Acquisition Officer and another Vs. Jose Prazeres De Piedade Pinto and others" 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 318, it is held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 7. Considering the fact situation in the present case and the settled law related to the subject of delay condonation, I do not find any substance in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp49409