1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5278 OF 2010 (Ramaji Madhavrao Bind .v. Central Bank of India and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Ansari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.N. Fuladi, Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 05TH AUGUST, 2011. Heard. We find nothing wrong with the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 29.03.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The learned Tribunal rightly found that there was an inordinate delay of two years and three months in filing the appeal. It was stated by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay that the petitioner was a Sculptor doing seasonal work of manufacturing idols and he had the responsibility of his wife, minor daughter and son. It was stated in the application that the tenants of the petitioner stopped paying the rent regularly to the petitioner after January, 2005. It is stated in the application that due to the aforesaid facts, the wife of the petitioner suffered mental depression and when she made an attempt to commit suicide, some relatives advanced hand loan to the petitioner and after receiving the hand loan, the appeal was filed. The said reasons did not find favour with the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal held that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay of two years and three months. The Tribunal held that the assertion of the petitioner that his financial condition was not good was not sufficient to explain for the delay. 2 Even otherwise it is difficult to believe some of the statements on facts made by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay of two years and three months in filing the appeal. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that he somehow managed to file the appeal after two years and three months after securing loan from his relatives also appear to be incorrect as the petitioner had also applied along with the application for condonation of delay for waiver of the monetary deposit. Since there is no perversity or illegality in the order dated 29.03.2010, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.