1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1270 OF 2009 Dadasaheb Ganpat Patil ...Petitioner vs. Bhagwan Parshuram Mohite & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ajit J. Kenjale for the petitioner Mr.Dilip Bodake for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 12, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. An application was made by the petitioner for condonation of delay in preferring an Appeal before the District Court. There was a delay of 33 months in preferring the Appeal for challenging the consent decree passed in the suit filed by the 1st respondent against the other respondents. The application for condonation of delay has been rejected by the Appellate Court by passing the impugned order on the ground that there is no explanation for delay. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner may be possibly aware about the pendency of the suit preferred by the 1st respondent, in May 2006, undue advantage of the consent decree was sought to be taken by the 1st respondent of the consent decree. He submitted that as a result of the attempt by the 1st respondent to claim ownership of the property of the petitioner on the basis of the consent decree, the petitioner was forced to prefer an appeal. He submitted that sufficient cause was made out in the said 2 application and the District Court ought to have adopted a liberal approach. 3 I have considered the submissions. The delay is of 33 months in preferring an appeal against a decree to which the petitioner is not a party. The knowledge of the pendency of the suit by the petitioner is virtually admitted. The Appellate Court has recorded a finding that in an appeal pending before the Superintendent of Land Records, Satara wherein the petitioner was a party, a respondent in the said Appeal submitted an application dated 1st December 2004 and by the said application he informed the Authority about the consent Decree. Even thereafter, no steps have been taken by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that in the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has not specifically stated that the date on which he acquired the knowledge of the consent decree. In the circumstances, the Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 33 months on the ground that there was absolutely no explanation for such a long delay. Apart from this the petitioner is not party to the consent decree and therefore, the decree will not bind him. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. Petition is accordingly rejected. 4 It is made clear that notwithstanding the rejection of this Writ Petition, it will be open for the petitioner to adopt appropriate remedy for establishing his alleged rights in respect of the property in dispute. JUDGE