1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3009 OF 2008 Shahaji Applauses Bhosale .. Petitioner Vs. Appasaheb Balu Bhosale & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Satyajeet M.Mirajkar for the petitioner CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2008 P.C.: 1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11th March, 2008 whereby the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been dismissed. 2. The appeal which is sought to be filed is against the decree dt. 30.09.1998. The case of the petitioner is that at the relevant time when the decree was passed he was a minor. It is the contention of the petitioner that he became aware of the decree only recently when he received notice 2 from the Court Commissioner. According to the petitioner, the share of the respondent no.2 has been given in excess than what he has been entitled to, and he has been deprived of a part of his share. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Bhagmal v. M.P.Cooperative Bhagmal v. M.P.Cooperative Bhagmal v. M.P.Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. and Ors. Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. and Ors. Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 727 reported in (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 727 reported in (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 727 and the case of Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil and another Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil and another Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil and another v. Godawaribai w/o Laxmansingh Gahirewar reported v. Godawaribai w/o Laxmansingh Gahirewar reported v. Godawaribai w/o Laxmansingh Gahirewar reported in 1999(2) Mh.L.J. 272. in 1999(2) Mh.L.J. 272. in 1999(2) Mh.L.J. 272. In the case of Bhagmal vs.M.P.Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. and Ors. (Supra), there was a delay of 6 years and the appeal court had condoned the delay and the Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order by setting aside Appellate Authority’s order which only enables the appeal court to have a statutory remedy of appeal. In the case of Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil and another vs. Godawaribai w/o Laxmansingh Gahirewar and others (Supra), it has been held that duration of delay is insignificant 3 and the court has to take into account if there is any acceptable or pardonable explanation. 4. I have gone through the impugned order, the material on record as well as the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The principles underlined in both the decisions cited above is that in exercising its discretion the court should be judicious. In the case in hand there is an unreasonable delay of 9 years which has not been explained. Admittedly, the petitioner has also attained majority in 2005. The explanation for delay given by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 5. In my view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and no case for inference has been made out by the petitioner so as to exercise supervisory jurisdiction by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 4 ( A.A.SAYED, J.) ( A.A.SAYED, J.) ( A.A.SAYED, J.)