1 wp2994-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2994/2009 Laxman S/o Ganpat Jagtqp .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] Ajit Bhagwan Dalvi 2] Hari S/o Bhagwan Dalvi 3] Anil S/o Bhagwan Dalvi 4] Sunil S/o Bhagwan Dalvi. .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri Z.M.Pathan h/f Shri S.S.Kazi,Adv.for Petr. Shri K.N.Lokhande h/f B.G.Sugade Patil,Adv.for respondents 1 & 2. Respondents 3 and 4 served. .... CORAM : A.A.SAYED,J. DATE : 20/12/2010. PER COURT : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally by consent. 2] By the above petition, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 24/11/2008 passed by District Judge-I and A.S.J. Shrirampur, whereby the application filed by the respondent no.2/original deft. no.2 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the exparte judgment and decree dated 8/4/2003, came to be allowed. 3] It is contended that there is delay of about 1204 days 2 wp2994-09 in filing the Appeal and that the exparte decree was passed on 8/4/03 and it is only on being served with the execution proceedings, the defendant no.2 came forward and filed application under Section IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. on 4/9/03. The said application under Order IX Rule 13 came to be rejected on 14/7/2006 and the appeal against the exparte decree was thereafter filed by respondent no.2 on 21/9/06. 4] It is seen that between 4/9/2003 and 14/7/2006, the respondent no.2 was prosecuting the matter in the trial Court by filing application under Order IX Rule 13. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in any manner negligent or the delay was deliberate. 5] In these circumstances, I find that the trial Court has rightly observed that the applicant was prosecuting the matter in the trial Court and accordingly, the delay was condoned in the interest of justice. It is noted that the trial Court has further compensated the petitioner by awarding the costs of Rs.2000/-. 6] In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial Court in condoning the delay. No fault can be found in the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED,J.) umg/wp2994-09