MP 1 WP4398_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4398 OF 2010 Shri Prakash Keru Girme and others ... Petitioners Versus Shri Ananta Mahadeo Girme and others ... Respondents Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General i/b. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar for Petitioners. Mr. V. P. Sawant with Ms. Rajlakshmi i/b. M/s. ALMT Legal for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 P. C. : By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22nd March 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside an order of dismissal of suit in default, came to be rejected. 2. The petitioners filed a suit for partition. The suit was filed in the year 1995. On 4th March, 2006, the said suit came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, an application came to be filed for setting aside the said order along with the application for condonation of delay. After considering the facts on record, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application for condonation of delay. Hence the present petition. 3. Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned Advocate General, appearing MP 2 WP4398_10 on behalf of the petitioner submits that on 4th March 2006, the suit was not fixed for hearing. It was only an application below exhibit-68 which was posted for hearing. It is, therefore, submitted that at the hearing, a learned Trial Judge could have dismissed the application below exhibit-68 and not the entire suit. It is further submitted that the delay occurred in filing the application on account of certain deaths in the family. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Sawant appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the learned Trial Court has found that the contention raised by the present petitioners were false, and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to any equitable delay. 5. At this stage, the court is only concerned as to whether the learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel for respondents has taken me through the cross-examination of the witness examined on behalf of the petitioners. From the cross-examination, it is evident that the said witness came to know about the dismissal of the suit in the month of July 2006 itself. However, even thereafter for a period of 15 months, application was not made for grant of certified copy. It was made only on 1st September 2007 for the first time. The said witness has categorically admitted in his evidence that there was no reason for him not to apply for certified copy from 1st July 2006 to 1st July 2007. It clearly appears from the impugned order that the petitioner was not at all diligent in prosecuting the matter. On the contrary, it can clearly be seen that he was thoroughly negligent. The learned Trial Court has further found that no reason is given as to why the other applicants did not take MP 3 WP4398_10 steps for restoration of the suit. 6. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited unless it is found that the jurisdiction exercised is exercised in a perverse manner. No perversity is noticed in the approach adopted by the learned Trial Court to warrant interference. Hence rejected. 7. At this stage, the learned Advocate General requests for extension of status quo for the period of four weeks. The learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer. 8. However, taking into consideration that there was an ad- interim protection, the same shall operate to continue for a period of four weeks from today. (B.R. GAVAI, J)