*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1520/2008 Anil Shamrao Patil. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Sambhaji Gopalrao Bhosale. ..Respondent ............... Mr.S.N.Chandrachood, Advocate for the Petitioner. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 23rd November, 2009. PC:- 1 The present Writ Petition is filed by the tenant against whom a decree for eviction and possession has been passed by the Trial Court on various grounds. The suit was filed on 19.12.2000 and the present Petitioner/ tenant did though file the Written Statement through his Advocate sometime in the year 2001, however, thereafter, the Petitioner choose to remain absent and did not participate in the proceedings of the suit. Consequently, the suit came to be decreed exparte in the year 2004. Belatedly, sometime in the year 2007 the Petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay which was of more than 1000 days and rejection of the said application has given rise to filing of the present Writ Petition. 2 The reason put forth by the Petitioner/Defendant to show sufficient cause in not attending the suit proceedings before *2* the Trial Court was to the effect that the Respondent/ Landlord assured the Petitioner/ Tenant that he need not have to attend the suit proceedings and the landlord would withdraw the suit. Relying on the said alleged assurance, the Petitioner did not participate in the suit. The first Appellate Court refused to believe the reason itself by saying that no prudent man, during the pendency of suit and after having engaged a lawyer, can choose not to attend the proceedings in the suit and the explanation put forth by the Petitioner cannot be accepted and hence, the first Appellate Court has rejected the application. The first Appellate Court has further observed that no particulars such as time, date, place etc. when the assurance was allegedly given were stated in the application. The copy of application is not placed on record. 3 Be that as it may, the view taken by the first Appellate Court is a possible view of the matter and thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference. An order could only be interfered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when such an order suffers with patent illegality. In the present case, I do not find any illegality much less patent committed by the Court below. In the result, the Writ Petition is summarily dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)