wp5547.10.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5547/2010 Amanraj Beverages Private Limited and another -vs- Dattatray Govindrao Wandhre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ms Akshada Thakare, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri A. Pande, learned counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 29.08.2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the District Judge-11, Nagpur, on 7th of August, 2010 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Misc. Civil Appeal. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order along with the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it appears that the first appellate court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner was bona fide prosecuting the matter before the wrong forum till 7.7.2009 and the time spent in prosecuting the matter before the wrong forum should be excluded, the petitioner has not said a word in the application for condonation of delay for not filing the appeal within a reasonable time after the writ petition was dismissed on 7.7.09. It appears that the appeal was preferred by the wp5547.10.odt 2/3 petitioner before the first appellate court on 19.9.2009 and the limitation for filing an appeal is only 30 days. In such circumstances, in the absence of reasons, much less any reason, for the delay of 73 days in filing the appeal after the High Court decided the writ petition on 7.7.2009, the first appellate court did not have any alternative but to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Since the order passed by the first appellate court is just and proper, the same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. At this juncture, a request is made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner may be granted leave to amend the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous civil appeal. The request made on behalf of the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent and it is submitted on behalf the respondent that the petitioner is in arrears of rent nearly to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.four lacs). Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner is absconding and is not residing on the said address. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, in case the petitioner is granted leave to amend the application for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous civil appeal, the petitioner should be put to terms. The petitioner was asked to deposit some arrears of rent in this Court as a condition precedent for granting leave to the petitioner for amending the application for condonation wp5547.10.odt 3/3 of delay in filing the miscellaneous civil appeal. On instructions from the petitioner, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not in a position to deposit any amount due to financial constraints. In the peculiar facts of this case, specially because the petitioner is not willing to deposit a part of the arrears of rent and is also not willing to pay heavy costs for seeking leave to amend the application for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous civil appeal, at this belated stage, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of leave is rejected. JUDGE KHUNTE