1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5920 OF 2010 Shri Givander Shripal Rukade & Another ...Petitioners Versus Sour Aruna Suryakant Bhokare ...Respondent Mr.Nagesh Chavan for the Petitioner CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 7th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent herein filed Regular Civil Suit No.369 of 2003 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Islampur. The said suit was decreed on 8th October 2009. The petitioner herein filed the appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 8th October, 2009 as he was aggrieved by the said judgment and decree. The said appeal came to be filed on 12th March, 2010 in the Court of Adhoc District Judge I, Islampur. The petitioner noted the fact that there was delay of 5 months and 25 days in filing the said appeal. That is how he filed Misc. Civil Application No.18 of 2010 praying that the 2 delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The learned Adhoc District Judge I, Islampur (hereinafter referred to as said Court) by judgment and order dated 29th June, 2010 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29th June 2010, the appeal is filed this writ petition. 2. I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. The application for condonation of delay does not mention the date on which the petitioner came to know about the judgment and decree passed against him on 8th October, 2009. It is stated by the petitioner that he was suffering from Enteric Fever from 25th September, 2009 till 5th March, 2010 and that the appeal came to be filed after obtaining certified copy of the judgment and order dated 8th October, 2009 on 12th March, 2010. The petitioner has relied upon the Medical Certificate dated 5th March, 2010 issued by Dr. Sanjay G. Patil of Ashta. In the said certificate it is stated that the petitioner was under his treatment from 25th September, 2009 till 5th March, 2010 for Enteric Fever. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that on account of the illness, the petitioner could not attend to the said trial. 3 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. Mst. Katiji and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner wanted this court to appreciate the view taken by the Apex Court for the purpose of deciding this petition. I have perused the said judgment. 4. In the absence of specific date on which the petitioner came to know about the passing of the judgment and decree against him, the reasons given by the petitioner that he was sick, is the cause just put up to cover up the delay. The medical certificate is issued on 5th March, 2010 and the said doctor claims that the petitioner was suffering from Enteric Fever from 25th September, 2009 till 5th March, 2010. If the treatment was going on for such a long time, i.e. practically for about 6 months, in my view in order to support the ground that the petitioner was not well, it was necessary for the petitioner to annex some more medical papers to show that he was suffering from Enteric Fever from 25th September, 2009. In my view, certificate dated 5th March, 2010 is produced by the petitioner solely to cover the period from 25th September, 2009 to 5th March, 2010. It 4 is to be noted that the petitioner is the defendant in the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No.369 if 2003. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not attending to the said suit and the fact of the decree being passed against him came to his knowledge all of a sudden, In my view, the entire conduct of the petitioner clearly goes to show that he was absolutely negligent in attending to the matter. The petitioner’s stand that he was unwell is just a cause placed by him before the Court, without any substance therein. In my view the petitioner was negligent in attending to the matter and the reasons mentioned in the petition are not convincing. In my view, the delay in not properly explained. Hence judgment relied upon by the petitioner’s Advocate in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another is not applicable to the facts of this case. This petition is therefore required to be dismissed. Hence the order. ORDER Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)