1 wp3740.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 3740 of 2009 Pandurang Shankar Waghmare & ors. ...Petitioners v/s. Jagu @ Jagannath Shankar Waghmare & ors. ...Respondents Mr. D.d. Rananware for the petitioners. Mr. H.G. Wakshe for respondent no.1. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- FEBRUARY 22 2011. P.C. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 28th November, 2008 vide which the learned trial Court has rejected the Application filed by the present Petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. There is delay of about seven months and 27 days in filing the Appeal. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner 2 wp3740.09.sxw believing on the word of the Respondent no.1 that the matter would be settled and Petitioners would be given their share, did not find it necessary to defend the suit. He submitted that only after the suit was decreed, they came to know that Respondent No. 1 has not unearthed the word. The perusal of the impugned order would reveal that in the cross-examination of the present Petitioner, he has admitted that the said Petitioner had appeared through his Advocate namely Shri Pathak. It is also admitted that since the date of filing of the suit, the Petitioner and brother opponents are not on talking terms with the Respondent No. 1 and that he did not tell him that he will get his share at any time. It may thus clearly be seen that the very contention which is sought to be raised by the Petitioners is contrary to what has been admitted by him in his cross-examination. 3. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be noticed in the approach adopted by the learned trial Court to warrant interference. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)