{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7191 OF 2008 Deepak Mahipatrai Shah & others PETITIONERS VERSUS Padmashri Dr.Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioners Mr.N.D.Sonawane h/f Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for respondent. ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 5 th August 2009 PER COURT: 1. Respondents No.2 to 4 are deleted vide order dated 14.07.2009. 2. By the present writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.10.2008 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.42/2008 by In-charge Member, Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad. By the said application, the present petitioners have prayed for condonation of 61 days delay in preferring appeal against the order dated 01.02.2008 passed on admission by Judge Cooperative Court, at Shrirampur. It was stated in para 4 of the application that since the advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioners, was {2} not attending the office and hence they were seeking advice from other counsel. For how many days the petitioners have sought advice cannot be said to be a good ground for condonation of delay. These petitioners have filed two written statements before the trial court. One was separately signed by opponent No.4, who is also the signatory of the application for condonation of delay and the other written statement filed on behalf of opponents No.2 to 4 on 13.01.2003 also signed by respondent No.4. In the said written statement, in unambiguous terms, the petitioners have admitted that a sum of Rs.3,11,96,299.57 is outstanding and payable to the disputant. This admission is given at three places in the written statement. The total claim filed before the trial court was for the sum of Rs.7 crores and odd. Out of the same an amount of Rs. 3,11,96,299.57 was admitted as outstanding dues. Under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code decree on admission was passed by the trial court which cannot be faulted with. Once the decree is passed on admission and merely for seeking advise delay of 61 days is caused, cannot be said that the delay is properly explained in preferring the appeal. The order passed by the learned appellate court thereby dismissing the Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay cannot faulted with. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and hence dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/wp7191-08