-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.3690 of 2007 Shri Deepak Vithal Katare ..Petitioner vs. 1. Santoshihi @ Rajashri Lingaraj Swami and others ..Respondents Shri J.N.Shiradhonkar for petitioner. Shri A.S.Kulkarni for respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 15th January, 2008 15th January, 2008 15th January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2nd January, 2007 in Misc.Application No.241 of 2006 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge,Solapur. 2. The said application was for condonation of delay. The petitioner is the original applicant. One Santoshi daughter of Shashikant Angadi filed Special Civil Suit No.309 of 1998 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Solapur for partition and separate possession. The suit was decided and on 20th August, 1999 preliminary decree was passed. The plaintiff was allotted 1/8th share. Thereafter final decree proceedings were initiated by the -2- original plaintiff. The final decree proceedings culminated on 29th November, 2003. The petitioner was not party to the decree. His father was a party. During the pendency of the final decree proceedings 16 of 1999 the present applicant purchased 1/2l undivided share in the suit property on 8th February, 2000 by registered sale deed from original opponent nos. 4 to 8. In such circumstances final decree proceedings were sought to be put in execution and implementation. They have gained finality and that is how the original plaintiff filed Special Darkhast no.111 of 2004. The petitioner/applicant filed his objections to the darkhast. He contended that after the death of his father no legal heirs were brought on record. The petitioner was not residing in Solapur but at Akkalkot. The petitioner was not advised properly and that is how he could not challenge the said preliminary and final decree proceedings. He contended that he is in possession of the portion as a tenant for more than 50 years and since 8th March, 2000 he has purchased the undivided 1/2 portion as the owner. In such circumstances, the delay be condoned. -3- 3. During the course of deciding the delay condonation application, the learned Judge has referred to the purshis Exh.65. The purshsis Exh.65, according to the learned Judge, records that the petitioner/applicant had not desired to challenge the proceedings. That was a statement made because it was brought to his notice that purshis was filed because the original plaintiff had indicated that the parties to it had no desire to disturb possession. In such circumstances, the lower Appellate Court rejected the application for condonation of delay. 4. When this matter was placed before me earlier, I called upon the learned Advocates to take instructions and when the matter was placed before me today the learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4, on instructions, makes a statement that respondent nos. 1 to 4 so also the persons claiming through them are not interested in and shall not disturb the physical possession of the applicant in respect of the half portion as more particularly described in the sale deed dated 8th March, 2000. In other words, whatever has been in occupation of the petitioner/applicant as a -4- tenant and whatever is covered by the said sale deed would be allowed to be retained by the petitioner/applicant and his possession in respect thereof shall not be obstructed or interfered with in any manner by the decree holder. Statement accepted. 5. Upon this statement being made, the learned Advocate does not press his challenge to the impugned order. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with no order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)