1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1401/2009 (Nanaji Jairam Sakharkar Vs. Balkrishna Kawaduji Ganfade & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.M. Kalar, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 6 th APRIL, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Warora, on 15/12/2008, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for condoantion of delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court on 21/10/2005. In the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay, it was stated by the petitioner that the knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 21/10/2005 was not gained by the petitioner till he received the notice of execution proceedings. It is then stated that he obtained the certified copy of the judgment dated 21/10/2005, on 25/7/2007, and without any delay, filed the application for setting aside the judgment and decree. It is also 2 stated by the petitioner in the application that there is no delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, from the date of knowledge, but to avoid any technical objection, the application was moved for seeking condonation of delay in filing an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application filed by the petitioner was strongly opposed by the respondents. The Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Warora, by an order dated 15/12/2008, rejected the application. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also perused the application as also the order dated 15th of December, 2008. From a reading of the same, it is clear that the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Warora, has not committed any error, much less a jurisdictional error, in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court found that the notice in the execution proceedings was received by the petitioner on 30/7/2006 and the petitioner had himself appeared in the proceedings. The petitioner was, therefore, aware of the passing of the ex parte decree on 30/7/2006. The petitioner, however, did not apply for grant of a certified copy immediately and belatedly obtained the certified copy on 25/7/2007 though the copies were ready 3 for delivery on 17/7/2007. The trial Court observed that the petitioner had applied for grant of certified copy only on 11/7/2007 though he was served with the notice of execution on 30/7/2006. The trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The petitioner had not stated the true and correct facts in the application for condonation of delay and had concealed from the trial Court that the petitioner had received the notice in the execution proceedings on 30/7/2006. In fact, the petitioner tried to make a show that the application was filed within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 21/10/2005. In such circumstances, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE RMP