1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5068/2010 Dhanraj Ramraoji Umathe Vs. Shekhar s/o Damodhar Dongade =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 1, 2010. Heard Advocate Gosawi for the petitioner. He contends that delay of 156 days in filing an appeal against order rejecting an objection under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of CPC has been mechanically condoned. The Objector/respondent did not enter witness box and he was not prosecuting the other remedies bonafide. Learned counsel states that after rejection of that objection instead of filing appeal he chose to approach this Court in revision and also simultaneously filed civil suit and made attempt to obtain temporary injunction to protect his possession. Civil Revision was not pressed till application for temporary injunction was rejected and after its rejection when civil revision was listed 2 for final hearing the petitioner pointed out that remedy of appeal is available. Revision was therefore withdrawn and present proceedings were filed along with prayer for condonation of delay. During arguments, learned counsel fairly conceded that petitioner as also respondent filed joint pursis before the Appellate Court refusing to lead any evidence. According to him, burden to establish bonafides was upon the respondent and hence it was obligatory for him to lead evidence. The facts clearly shows that respondent is in possession and he has made all efforts to protect that possession. It is apparent that he has acted on legal advice received. The Appellate Court has applied its mind and condoned that delay. According to petitioner, delay is of 156 days while according to the respondent after excluding copying period it is of only 70 days. Looking to the application of mind by the Appeal Court, I do not find any jurisdictional error and perversity. Hence, petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE ambulkar