1 (WP 2640 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2640 OF 2011 M/s. Hind Stores ...Petitioner Vs. Smt.Meera Bhau Pawagi and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.P.B. Shah for Petitioner ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 12th July, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order of ex-parte decree passed by the Trial Court and the order of the Appellate Court confirming the said ex-parte order, by refusing the condonation of delay, which was caused in filing the appeal. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was a tenant in respect of the suit premises which was used as a godown. It is submitted that the Respondent-landlord was aware that the Petitioner's address was at Laxmi Gate, Kute Chowk since the Petitioner was sending the money orders to the landlord from time to time. It is submitted that in spite of this, address shown in the plaint is different. It is 2 (WP 2640 of 2011) submitted that the Petitioner was served by way of substituted service and the ex-parte order was obtained by the landlord. Possession of the suit premises was obtained in June, 2005. Appeal against the said order, however, was filed in 2009. The Lower Appellate Court rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the sufficient cause has not been shown by the Petitioner for condonation of delay. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the landlord had deliberately given the wrong address of the Petitioner in this plaint and the suit summons was not served. It is submitted that after the ex-parte decree was passed and possession was taken illegally by the Plaintiff, the Petitioner herein had moved before various authorities on account of wrong advise. It was submitted that since the Petitioner visited the go-down frequently, he came to know about the execution of the decree in 2008. It was also submitted that he had filed a police complaint against the landlord. 5. In my view, submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. There is a gross unexplained delay in filing the appeal. The decree was executed in June, 2005 and even, thereafter for a period of three years no steps were taken by the 3 (WP 2640 of 2011) Petitioner and hence, no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. Writ petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)