IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 2009 The Municipal Corporation for City of Thane ...Petitioner V/s. Ramesh Pandurang Tandel ...Respondent ...... Mr.A.R.Pitale for Petitioner. Mr.R.S.Datar for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 31, 2009. MARCH 31, 2009. MARCH 31, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. In my opinion, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted in the fact situation of the present case. The Court below, amongst others, has noted that inspite of temporary injunction granted by the Court, the Defendant raised the construction of W.C. in the premises of the Plaintiff. This is one of the reason stated by the lower Court to deny relief to the Petitioner. : 2 : If the Court below has rejected the plea of the Petitioner on account of the conduct of the Petitioner, the question of interfering with such a discretionary order does not arise. Besides, I find substance in the argument of the Petitioner that inspite of the fact that the order impugned in this Petition is passed as back as on 22nd August 2008, the present Petition has been filed only on 18th March 2009. That reflects about the casualness in the approach of the Petitioner. The only explanation with regard to this inaction can be traced to averments in Paragraph 14 of the Petition, where the Petitioner states that the certified copy of the impugned order became available to the Petitioner on 20th October 2008. No assertion is made as to when certified copy was applied and moreso, as to what prevented the Petitioner to file the present Petition till 18th March 2009 although the certified copy was made ready on 20th October 2008. Besides the reasons given by the lower Court for rejecting the Application for condonation of delay of about 51 days in filing appeal, even for these reasons, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. : 3 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.