1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PETANT APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2009 Dnyaneshwar Roopchand Sonawane ..... APPELLANT VERSUS Addl.Commissioner for Revenue, Nashik Division & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. ........................... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 25/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. This Letters Petant Appeal takes exception to the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 8/6/2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 3053 of 2009 dismissing the petition filed by the present appellant challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik dated 17/4/2009 condoning the delay in filing the Election Petition under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 2. The learned Single Judge has found that the application came to be filed for issuance of certified copy on 12/2/2008. The results of the election had been declared on 18/6/2008 and the application was, therefore, within the period of limitation. The certified copy was actually received on 6/10/2008 and on 13/10/2008, the election dispute came to be filed. The learned Single Judge, therefore, felt that there was no perversity in the exercise of the discretion by the 2 Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. We have heard Mr. Hon, learned counsel for the appellant and we have perused the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. The party is not required to explain his in-action during the period of limitation. In the present case, the respondent had applied for certified copy during the period of limitation. He is, therefore, not expected to explain as to why on the first date of the commencement of limitation, he had not applied for certified copy. Since the delay is extremely marginal and has been sufficiently explained, the Single Judge has thought it fit not to interfere in the order. 4. We do not notice any perversity in the reasonings of the Single Judge to warrant any interference in this Letters Petant Appeal. Accordingly, this Letters Petant Appeal is dismissed. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/LPA 127.09