1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6535 OF 2011 Shri Najmul Hasan Shah Mohammed, & Others ...Petitioners Versus Shri Haji Mohammad Usman Mohammad Bashir & Others ...Respondent Mr.A.M.Savagave with Sachin Dhakephalkar for the Petitioners CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondents herein had filed Regular Civil Suit No.286 of 1991 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhivandi (hereinafter referred to as learned trial Judge). The said suit came to be decreed on 16.1.2009. The petitioners claim that they came to know about the decree sometime in June 2009 when the summons or notices were received by them in the Execution Proceeding. Thereafter appeal was filed in the District Court. Misc. Application 2 No.256 of 2009 was also filed in the District Court. The learned Principal District Judge, Thane by his Order dated 29.4.2011 decided the said application and rejected the same. Against the said order this petition is filed. 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Savgave for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner no.3 who used to attend to the litigation was out of town, and thereafter in June 2009 he was informed about the Court notice and consequently the petitioners approached their Advocate on 24.6.2009 and came to know about the decree being passed and execution thereof. The petitioners, after getting this information, in June 2009 filed Misc. Appeal and Misc. Application on 4.9.2009. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that only petitioner no.3 was attending to the litigation and he had left Mumbai to have treatment at native place and therefore matter remained to be attended to. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Judge ought to have considered the ground put up in the application and should have taken lenient view. 3. I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. After having 3 considered the entire record, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 29.4.2011 for the reasons mentioned below. 4. In the first place, it is required to be noted that there are in all 7 persons who are defendants and out of those 7 persons, 3 were ladies. Even then, the record shows that there were as many as 4 male litigants. The petitioners claim that only petitioner no.3 was attending to the litigation. Even if this is so, each of the petitioner is responsible and answerable to the delay which has been occasioned. It is mentioned in the impugned order that the other petitioners were not having knowledge about the litigation. It is just impossible to accept this, particularly because the suit is filed against substantial number of members of the family and the suit was for recovery of the possession in regard to the premises covered by the present suit. If this was the position, the stand taken by the applicants in application dated 4.9.2009 just cannot be accepted. In my view, all the petitioners have disclosed negligent conduct at the stage of trial as well as after the decree came to be passed. In my view, the learned Principal Judge has taken correct view of the matter and has given good reasons to reject the application. No interference is 4 required. Hence the order. ORDER Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)