... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3066 OF 2006 PETITION NO.3066 OF 2006 PETITION NO.3066 OF 2006 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3065 OF 2006 PETITION NO.3065 OF 2006 PETITION NO.3065 OF 2006 Chandrakant Tukaram Bharekar ...Petitioner (In both the Petitions) Versus Damu Sitaram Nanaware & Ors. ...Respondents (In both the Petitions) Shri R.N.Sanghavi for the Petitioner in both the Petitions. Shri Mandar Limaye for the Respondent Nos.1 to 9 in both the Petitions. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : APRIL 26, 2007. : APRIL 26, 2007. : APRIL 26, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. In Writ Petition No.3066 of 2006 the challenge is to the order dated 23rd November, 2004 passed by the trial Court. The Writ Petition has been filed on 28th March, 2006. In Writ Petition No.3065 of 2006, the challenge is to the order passed on 11th July, 2003. 2. For dealing with an objection regarding delay and latches in filing these Petitions raised by the contesting Respondents, an affidavit have has been filed by the Petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No.3066 of 2006. In the said affidavit it is stated that the Petitioner No.1 was suffering from acute and chronic ... 2 ... ploy artharlgia due to SSA from 10th August, 2003 to 12th December, 2005. It is stated that due to illness he could not meet the Advocate and give instructions. There is another affidavit filed by Smt Shailaja Ghaokar who is the Petitioner No.2 in Writ Petition No.3065 of 2006. It is stated in the affidavit that her husband Chandrakant was bedridden from 10th August, 2003 to 12th December, 2005. She has stated that she was not able to take any steps in the matter as she is illiterate and she had to look after her husband. 3. The orders impugned in both the Petitions are not final orders and the suit is still pending. In the Writ Petitions there is no explanation whatsoever for delay in approaching this Court. The explanation has come in the form of additional affidavits. Certain medical certificates are produced across Bar for my perusal. 4. I find that it is not possible to accept the case made out by the Petitioners that the illness prevented filing of the Writ Petitions within a reasonable time. Considering the nature of the impugned orders no interference can be made at this stage in the Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, made clear that in case the ... 3 ... decree passed in the suit is adverse to the Petitioners, they will be entitled to challenge the impugned orders while preferring the Appeal against the decree. 5. In so far as valuation of the suit for court fess and jurisdiction is concerned, it is always open for the trial Court at an appropriate stage to pass appropriate order in case the trial Court finds that the suit is not properly valued. 6. Subject to what is stated above, Writ Petitions are rejected. All contentions on merits of the pending suit are kept open. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE