1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3381OF 2009 1. Rahul Wamanrao Pawar, 2. Sachin Wamanrao Pawar, 3. Sau. Ayodhya Wamanrao Pawar, All R/o. Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ....Petitioners. Versus 1. Nivrutti Shripati Pawar, R/o. Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Hemlata Kisanrao Deshmukh, R/o. Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. 3. Wamanrao Shripati Pawar, R/o. Deola, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. ....Respondents. Shri. L.H. Kawale, Advocate h/f. Shri.K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16th of September 2008 by which the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 111/2002 came to be allowed. 2 2. Shri. Kawale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned appellate Court has grossly erred in condoning the delay which is of 23 months for which there was no sufficient explanation. 3. The matter of condonation of delay is within the discretion of learned Appellate Court. Unless it is found that the discretion has been exercised in perverse manner, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned Appellate Court has found that the applicants before it has stated that the decree was passed exparte and that they came to know about it only when they received notice in R.D.No. 3/2007. The respondents have filed affidavit. As against this nothing was filed on behalf of the present petitioners to counter the submissions made on behalf of the respondents before the learned District Judge. 4. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found in the approach adopted by the learned trial Court so as to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ] ssc/wp3381.09