1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.343 OF 2011 (M/S. DELHI MAHARASHTRA ROAD LINES..VS.. PANDURANG RAMCHANDRA ITKELWAR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.K. Rewatkar, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 27, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur on 14.10.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside exparte judgment and decree. 3. The respondent is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent. It appears that though the petitioner/ defendant was served in the matter, the written statement was not filed and the matter proceeded exparte against the petitioner. The trial Court passed an exparte judgment and decree in favour of the respondent directing the petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff. The judgment and decree for eviction and possession was passed on 18.01.2008. After the judgment and decree was passed against the petitioner the petitioner 2 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside exparte judgment and decree along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. The application filed by the petitioner was strongly opposed by the respondent. The application for condonation of delay was, however, rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 14.10.2010. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay and the impugned order dated 14.10.2010, it appears that the trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. It is necessary to note that the petitioner has stated in the application for condonation of delay that Shri Ajay Jain through whom the petitioner was prosecuted was suffering from diabetes as well as hypertension during the pendency of the suit. It is stated in the application that the petitioner was bedridden and under observation of his doctor for 2-3 months. It appears that the petitioner must be referring to Shri Ajay Jain while making statements of facts in the said application. It is also stated in the application that the possession of the premises was handed over to one Shri Sunil Jain by an agreement dated 04.03.1997 and since the petitioner was not in possession of the tenanted premises since March, 1997, the petitioner did not bother about the case. The petitioner pleaded that he was having no knowledge about the Court proceedings and he could not contact his counsel. The petitioner stated in the application for condonation of delay that the petitioner became aware about the judgment and decree dated 18th January, 2008 when the petitioner received the notice of execution proceedings for appearing before the 3 Executing Court on 21.08.2009. It is then stated in the application that the petitioner applied for the certified copies of the judgment and decree and filed an application before the trial Court on 7th October, 2009. 5. The application filed by the petitioner was strongly opposed by the respondent. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, rejected the application filed by the petitioner with costs. 6. The impugned order passed by the trial Court on 14.10.2010 suffers from no error as the trial Court rightly found that there was absence of sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside exparte decree. The Court considered the fact that though the petitioner has stated in the application that Shri Ajay Jain was ill during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court and was bedridden he has failed to file any document or medical certificate in that regard. The Court, mainly considered the statement made by the petitioner in his application that since the property was handed over to one Shri Sunil Jain, the petitioner did not bother to proceed with the suit. This statement would surely weigh with the Court for rejecting an application filed by the party for condonation of delay in filing the application. Moreover, the petitioner has wrongly stated in the application that he had no knowledge about the Court proceedings though summons were duly served on the petitioner. Since Shri Ajay Jain was not in possession of the property since 1997 there is no reason for the petitioner to apply before the Court for condonation of delay through Shri Ajay Jain, specially when Shri Ajay Jain has categorically stated in his application for 4 condonation of delay that he did not bother to prosecute the matter in view of the fact that he had delivered the possession of the property to Shri Sunil Jain. The reasons recoded by the Court for rejecting the application for condonation of delay, are just and proper and the Court was justified in rejecting the said application. 7. Since, there is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial Court, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..