1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3692 OF 2009 Office notes, office memoranda of Corum, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s Judge’s orders. 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Omerga in Misc. Civil Application No. 67 of 2005 dated 6/12/12008, vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the Suit, which came to be dismissed in default, came to be rejected. 2. Shri. Ghute, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the lawyer for the petitioner informed that the proceedings are of 2 civil nature, they will take its own time and it is not necessary for him to attend the proceedings; the petitioner did not come to know about the dismissal of the Suit in default. 3. The learned trial Judge has found that there is delay of 2 years 7 months and 13 days. It has been found by the trial Judge that the village of the petitioner was only at the distance of 10 – 15 Kms. From Omerga, where the Suit was pending. It has also been found that the petitioner himself had admitted that he used to frequently visit Omerga for purchasing articles like clothing, etc. It has also been found that the petitioner has admitted that he has not filed complaint against the Advocate. 4. The matter of condonation of delay is within the discretion of the Court. A party seeking condonation is required to make out a case that it was prevented from filing the application within 3 limitation due to “ just and sufficient cause ”. Unless the discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge is found to be perversed, it will not be proper on the part of this Court to interfere with exercise of such discretion. 5. In the present case, the learned trial Judge has given finding that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for just and sufficient cause, by giving sound and cogent reasons. In this view of the matter, no perversity is noticed. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. DATE : 06/07/2009 [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP3692.09 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13