- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 2694 OF 2008 Shankar @ Shekhar Narayandas Udupi ... Petitioner Vs. Pandurang Mahipati Jadhav ... Respondent Mr. Vijay Killedar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, for Respondent. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : JULY 31, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. An appeal against the decree passed in favour of the respondent was preferred by the petitioner before the District Court. The said Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 4th March 2004. An application for restoration was made by the petitioner on 12th September 2007 along with an application for condonation of delay. The delay was of 3 years and 5 months. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2. The counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner had engaged an advocate in the appeal and as he did not attend to the said appeal, the same was dismissed. He also - 2 - pointed out that the petitioner was suffering from various ailments. He pointed out that petitioner was not kept informed by his advocate about the progress of the Appeal and that is the reason why the appeal has been dismissed. He stated that immediately after he came to know about dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner applied for restoration of the appeal. He, therefore, submitted that a liberal view ought to have been taken by the District Court and the delay ought to have been condoned. 3. I have considered the submissions. As stated earlier, the delay is of 3 years and 5 months. There was material placed on record to show that petitioner had knowledge about dismissal of the appeal. Reliance was placed on revision application dated 15th July 2005 filed against the son of the petitioner in which a ground was taken that the said appeal has been dismissed. There is a material on record to show that petitioner and his son have been residing together and the son was having knowledge of dismissal of appeal in the year 2005 itself. Considering all these aspects, the learned District Judge has observed that there was no satisfactory explanation for such a long delay. Considering the material on record, the learned District Judge was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. There is no merit in the petition, and the same is rejected. [ A. S. OKA, J.]