1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3622 OF 2009 Bhivarabai Shrirang Gund & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Padminibai Vasudeo Gund & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by Mr.Nitin Mulye for the petitioners. Mr.Niranjan Shimpi for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23 rd July 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners who are defendants in a suit filed by the 1 st respondent preferred an appeal against decree passed in favour of the 1 st respondent. The decree was passed on 17 th September 2001. The appeal was preferred on 20 th December 2007. Thus, there was a delay of more than six years and three months. The main ground in the application was that the applicant no.1 was in grief of her husband s death. The second ground is that the 1 st respondent plaintiff had approached the 1 st petitioner and assured her that 2 she will settle the matter amicably and therefore the 1 st petitioner need not appear in the Court. Another ground raised is that the 2 nd petitioner is of unsound mind. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken me through the averments made in the application. He submitted that the circumstances brought on record show that the petitioners were really not aware of the proceedings and they have filed the appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay only after they became aware of the proceedings. He submitted that this was a case where an ex- parte decree was passed against the petitioners of partition and separate possession and therefore, subject to imposing heavy costs delay ought to be condoned. He submitted that an opportunity may be given to the petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their contentions raised in the application for condonation of delay. 3 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The delay as stated earlier is of six years and three months. One of the main contentions raised is that the 1 st respondent approached the 1 st petitioner and assured her that matter would be settled amicably and therefore the 1 st petitioner need not appear in the Court. Another contention is that the 1 st respondent all along maintained good relations with the 1 st petitioner and pretended that she was not prosecuting the suit. There was an opportunity for the 1 st petitioner to step into witness box and to adduce evidence. That has not been done. It is not the case of the petitioners that no opportunity was granted to lead evidence in support of delay condonation application. This is not a case where summons was not served. The petitioners were aware of the suit. This is a case where there is absolutely no ground to condone long delay of more than six years. Hence, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)