1 wp1591.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1591 of 2011 Asha Nanasaheb Pagare & anr. ... Petitioners v/s. Smt. Banubai Dinkar Tile & ors. ... Respondents Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite for the petitioners. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- MARCH 16, 2011. P.C. The petitioner challenges the order dated 31st January, 2011 vide which an application for setting aside the order of dismissal of appeal in civil appeal no. 80/2000 came to be rejected. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the sisters of the petitioner who are the respondents had given an assurance to him that they would relinquish his shares in his favour, he did not find it necessary to prosecute the appeal and as such the appeal came to be dismissed. It is 2 wp1591.11.sxw submitted that only when petitioner received notice in the execution proceedings, he found that his sisters had misled him and, therefore, an application for setting aside the dismissal of the appeal order came to be filed. Learned Counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v/s Katiji reported in 1987 (2) SCC 107. 3. No doubt that Courts are required to take a liberal view in considering an application for condonation of delay. However, that does not absolve a party from making out a case for sufficient cause. In the present case the delay is of 5 years, one month and ten days. The learned Appellate Court has found that petitioner has not led any evidence to substantiate the plea that the talks of compromise were in progress. In any case it does not appear to be probable that for a long period of five years and more, the petitioner was waiting for compromise talk to fructify. 4. In that view of the matter, no error is found in the impugned order to warrant interference. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)