1 wp 5341 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5341 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1445 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5341 OF 2011 Shridhar Arjun Birje ...Petitioner Vs. Sadguru Enterprises ...Respondent ----- Mr. V.B. Ghorpade for Petitioner Mr.M.U.Pandey & Mr.R.M. Pandey for Respondent ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 3rd August, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dated 5th October, 2010. By the said order, the application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the written statement was rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that along with application which was filed for condonation of delay, the relevant medical certificates were not enclosed. It is submitted that 2 wp 5341 of 2011 these certificates were shown to the Learned Judge at the time of argument. It is, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court had clearly erred in holding that the concerned medical papers were not annexed. It is submitted that the Petitioner was suffering from serious ailment and the sufficient cause, therefore, was shown by the Petitioner. The delay, therefore, ought to have been condoned by the Trial Court. 4. The said submission cannot be accepted. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has observed that the Petitioner was served on 304.2010. However, the application for condonation of delay was filed on 31.8.2010. The Learned Judge has nowhere stated that the medical papers were shown by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. It is the settled position in law that the observation made by the Court has to be relied upon and not the statement of the litigant or his advocate. Apart from that, the Trial Court has observed that only if the Court is convinced by the cause shown by the Defendant, delay can be condoned. The Trial Court has, therefore, observed that the approach of the Defendant appeared to be casual and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the application for condonation of delay was rejected. 5. In my view, no case is made out for interfering 3 wp 5341 of 2011 with the impugned order. Writ Petition is dismissed and is, accordingly, disposed of. Civil Application does not survive and is also disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)