1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8493 OF 2009 Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s Ramchandra Kero Patil & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. L.M. Acharya for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Godse for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 4th December 2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Raigad rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. 3. On 28th October 1999, an order of injunction pending the decision of the suit was passed by the Trial Court. Appeal against the interim order was filed by the petitioner in the year 2007 and was barred by limitation by more than 7 years. Application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal has been rejected by the leaned District Judge. 2 4. The delay is gross and has not been satisfactorily explained. The only contention urged before me is that initially electric supply was provided by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short “MSEB”). The MSEB was divided into four different companies and the present petitioner, viz. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (for short “the transmission company”) is now concerned with the matter in dispute. On account of administrative difficulties arising due to division of MSEB, the appeal could not be filed in time. The date on which the MSEB was divided into four companies has not been mentioned, but the counsel for the petitioner states that it was some time in the year 2001-2002. The impugned order was passed about two years prior to the division of the MSEB into four companies. The MSEB therefore could have filed the appeal within those two years. No explanation is offered why the MSEB could not file the appeal during the said period of 2 years. Further more, there are no details about the alleged administrative difficulties and why the appeal could not be filed within time. The application for delay was vague as it could be. 5. In the circumstances, the learned District Judge 3 committed no error in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. 6. There is one more reason why I am not inclined to interfere. The appeal in which the application for condonation of delay was made arose out of an interlocutory order. The petitioner can always challenge the order if it is aggrieved by the final decision in the suit. 7. For these reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)