1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.966 OF 2007. Tukaram S/o Bapu Kurhade ... Petitioner. Versus Ram S/o Nagu Kurhade and others ... Respondents. ... Mrs.V.B.Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 and 8 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 23.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 2.1.2007, rendered by learned Principal District Judge, Beed, in the 2 proceedings of Misc.Civil Application No. 218/2005. 3. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed suit (RCS No.46/2000) for partition and separate possession. They are sons of deceased Nagu and claimed 1/5th share as his heirs. According to them, deceased Eknath Ramchandra Kurhade originally owned the suit property. He was survived by five sons, namely, Bapu i.e. deceased Respondent No.1, Daulat i.e. the father of the Respondent Nos.5 to 7, Hanumant i.e. the father of the Respondent No.8 and Eknath i.e.the father of the Respondent No.9. The suit came to be decreed. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) alleged that the suit property was the ancestral property of the parties. It is significant further to note that the original defendant Nos.1 to 4 including the petitioner filed a common written statement (Exh.28). The relationship was admitted. The only dispute raised by them is that the suit land was self-acquired property of defendant No.1 who was absolute owner thereof and after his demise, 3 his branch held the same. 4. No appeal was filed by the contesting defendants against the partition decree. 5. It was only the petitioner who filed the appeal after delay of two (2) years 2 months and 20 days alongwith an application (Misc.Civil Application No.218/2005) for condonation of delay. 6. The petitioner asserted that he was prosecuting the matter in the trial Court and, therefore, other members of his branch had no knowledge about the same. He asserted that due to death of his father, he was mentally shocked. He had left the village and wondered from place to place for about two (2) years. He came to know about the decree rendered by the trial Court when he returned to Georai and contacted the advocate. He thereafter obtained the certified copies and filed the appeal. The learned Principal District Judge held that the explanation given by the petitioner was too 4 inadequate, insufficient and improper. Hence,the application was dismissed. 7. Let it be noted that when the suit (RCC No.46/2001) filed then the father of the petitioner i.e. original defendant No.1 Bapu was shown to be aged about 75 years. The suit was decided after about three (3) years in 2003 and then age of deceased defendant No.1 Bapu was approximately 78/79 years. It was not untimely death as such which could have given serious mental jolt to the petitioner. The petitioner was the eldest son and was Manager of the family even during life time of deceased defendant No.1 Bapu. There hardly appears any substance in the explanation that due to mental agony and shock, he had left the village and wondered from place to place for about two (2) years. No tangible evidence was produced to show that his mental condition had deteriorated. No evidence is placed on record to show that he was residing at out stations during the relevant period and was under medical treatment of any Ayurvedic practitioner as claimed by him. In this view of 5 the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from perversity or arbitrariness. No merit. The petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp96607