1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1520/2011 (GAJANAN RAMKRISHNA BHUDAKE & ANOTHER VERSUS RAMKUWAR KISANGOPAL SADANI) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri I.S. Charlewar, counsel for the petitioners. Shri B.N. Mohta, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the District Judge-1, Akot dated 16.12.2010 dismissing an application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of Regular Civil Appeal No.17/2005 (Old R.C.A. No.34/1999), which was dismissed in default on 24.07.2007. A suit was instituted by the respondent against the petitioners for eviction and arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 05.12.1998. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree and the same was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.34/1999. It was then re-registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.17/2005. Since the counsel for the petitioners made a statement before the appellate Court that the petitioners were not cooperating in the matter and not helping him in prosecuting the appeal, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal in default on 24.07.2007. The petitioners filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 16.12.2010. 2 Since there was a huge delay in filing the restoration application, an application was filed for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration. The first appellate Court, however, by the impugned order dated 16.12.2010, dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application, it appears that the first appellate Court was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The first appellate Court rightly observed that no reasons were stated by the petitioners in the application for explaining the huge delay caused in filing the application for restoration. The first appellate Court found that there was absence of sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than two years in filing the restoration application. According to the petitioners, the petitioners had stated the reasons for delay in paragraph 2 of the application. Paragraph 2 of the application reads as under : “2) It is submitted that due to communication between the applicants and his counsel the applicants could not filed an application for restoration of the appeal during prescribed limitation. That, the applicants was not aware about the dismissal order and as soon as the applicants got knowledge about the dismissal order the applicants contact with his counsel and kindly instructed for obtaining certified copies. 3 That, meanwhile, the N.A. have filed the execution of the impugned order before the Court of C.J.J.D. Telhara. In that execution proceedings, the applicants appeared through his counsel and sought time for filing reply. As soon as obtained the certified copies the applicants filed an application for restoration of the appeal against the dismissal order and hence there is no delay.” It appears on perusal of the said paragraph, which incorporates the reasons for belatedly filing the application for restoration, that the petitioners have not mentioned as to when they became aware about the dismissal order dated 24.07.2007, as to when they applied for certified copies and as to when they appeared in the execution proceedings filed by the respondent. The statements of facts in paragraph 2 of the application for condonation of delay are as vague and general as they could be. The petitioners have not specified the exact dates for the Courts to consider as to whether there was sufficient cause in condoning the huge delay. Since the delay was inordinate and was of 741 days, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate Court rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay as the delay was not satisfactorily explained by the petitioners. The order passed by the District Judge-1, Akot appears to be just and reasonable and the same cannot be interfered with, merely because a second view on the said issue may be possible. 4 Hence, in the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw an amount of Rupees Ten Thousand deposited by the petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 08.06.2011. JUDGE APTE