WP.8891-09 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 8891 OF 2009 M/s. Saffirre Valves & Equipments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. C.K.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Anilkumar Patil, for the Petitioners. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JANUARY 11, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court, rejecting the application, filed by them for condonation of dealay of 414 days in filing the appeal. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner herein has taken a loan from the Cooprative Bank. A Dispute was filed in the Cooperative Court for recovery of Rs.1,42,92,025/- from the petitioners herein. In the said Dispute, the petitioners herein were served. However, no written- statement was filed and therefore a decree was passed in favour of the WP.8891-09 - 2 - Bank. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment and order passed by the Cooperative Court after almost 414 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it was urged that the petitioners were not served with writ summons and exparte decree was passed against them. Further it was stated that they were not aware that the exparte decree was passed against them and that they came to know few days before the application was filed about the exparte decree. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has taken me through the judgment order of the Cooperative Appellate Court. In my view, no case is made out for interference with the order passed by the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court has observed that in fact the trial Court has in paragraph 5 observed that after service of summons on the opponents, the petitioners herein appeared in the trial Court. Sufficient opportunity was given to them to file written- statement. However, opponent No.2 alone filed written-statement and resisted the dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that summons was not served and an exparte decree was passed without service of summons was incorrect. Taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioners herein, in my view, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower WP.8891-09 - 3 - Appellate Court. The petitioners after having obtained a loan from the bank made default in payment of the said loan. After the dispute was allowed in favour of the bank, for a period of 414 days no steps were taken by the petitioners, and thereafter a false plea was raised that the summons was not served. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]