IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 561 OF 2008 SHRI. ANNAYA SHETTIGAR THROUGH ATTORNEY SADANAND ANNAYA SHETTIGAR ... Petitioner Versus MS. MONICA MENEZES AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 23rd October, 2008 P.C. The petitioner is the original defendant no.3 in Regular Civil Suit No.362/1985 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28.03.2008 by which the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the Civil Misc. Application No.136/2006, by refusing to condone the delay of 6 years, 10 months and 21 days in filing the appeal against the exparte decree dated 27.09.1999. The respondents filed a suit against the defendants including the present petitioner seeking declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant no.3 was null and void. The said suit was decreed exparte on 27.09.1999. After a period of 6 years, 4 months and 21 days the petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal against exparte decree. It was the case of the petitioner that in the year 1999, his relations with his family got strained and therefore, he shifted to Mangalore and only in 2006, when he returned he came to know about the ex-parte decree. The lower Appellate Court has held that the case set up by the petitioner that he had not established his case in as much as except for self serving affidavit, no other material was placed on record. Having regard to this fact, the lower Appellate held that the petitioner had not made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay and passed the impugned order. There is no other legal evidence produced before the lower Appellate Court in support of the said fact. Ms. Dessai, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3222 and Pratapchand Lakhamaji Jain v. Smt. Lilabai Krishnanath Surve reported 1998 (4) ALL MR 426. The learned counsel submitted serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the order refusing condonation of delay is not set aside. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and having perused the records and judgments relied upon, I find that the lower Appellate Court has not committed any jurisdictional error to warrant interference under article 227 of the Constitution of India. No doubt the Apex Court has held that sufficient cause has to be liberally construed and the period of delay may not be decisive in determining whether the party has made out sufficient cause for delay. The Apex Court has also held that in order to make out a case for condonation of delay, the party seeking condonation of delay has to satisfy the Court by placing cogent material before the Court that there was sufficient cause for not approaching the Court within the time prescribed. In the present case, except for the bare statement of the petitioner himself that in the year 1999, he went to Mangalore and returned in the year 2006, there is no other legal evidence to support this fact. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the lower Appellate Court. It is also to be borne in mind that certain rights are created in favour of the adverse party after the period of limitation and the same cannot be lightly interfered with. In my considered opinion the lower Appellate Court was perfectly justified in holding that the petitioner had not made out a case for condonation of delay. Therefore, no case is made out for interference and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. lh/.