1 W.P.No.1393.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1393 OF 2010 Kumudini W/o Atyanand Dhilpe ... PETITIONER V E R S U S Ramprasad S/o Lalitprasad Jaiswal ... RESPONDENT ... Mr.M.G.Deokate ,Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.S.Bora, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 26TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1] Heard Counsel. 2] The petition is disposed of at interim stage. 3] The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay caused in filing the application for setting aside the decree rendered against her in Special Civil Suit NO. 37 of 2006. The application came to be dismissed. 3] The delay was of 460 days . The reason ascribed for the delay was that counsel had neglected to look after the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner and committed 2 W.P.No.1393.10 latches. The petitioner alleged that, her counsel did not inform her about the stages and her evidence was therefore not recorded. Affidavit of the concerned counsel was not placed on record nor any reliable material was produced in order to show that her counsel committed latches and negligence. Affidavit of the concerned counsel is not placed on record in this petition too. The trial Court found that there was another suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 41 of 2006, which was filed by respondent and had been decreed. It was also noticed that she had availed 32 adjournments, one after another in Special Civil Suit NO 37 of 2006, but failed to prosecute the evidence. Under such circumstances, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. The petitioner did not give sufficient explanation and her explanation was found outside the ambit of section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner is at liberty to take up appropriate proceeding as may be permissible under the law. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR ) JUDGE MTK 3 W.P.No.1393.10