1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4635 OF 2008 Tukaram Anaji Dandekar. ..Petitioner. V/s. Sanjay Sadashiv Dandekar & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.M.Raikar for petitioner. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JULY 24, 2008. DATE : JULY 24, 2008. DATE : JULY 24, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. According to the Petitioner, the Court below was overwhelmed by the issues in appeal and has not addressed the real issue of sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In my opinion, the argument is misdirected. The fact that the Court below has adverted to the contention of both the sides up to paragraph-5 of the impugned order does not mean that that is the basis, on which the Application has been rejected. Instead, the reason for rejecting the Application for condonation of delay can be discerned from the paragraph-6 onwards and the final opinion recorded in paragraph-9 to the effect that no sufficient cause for condoning delay of 933 days has 2 been made out. 3. The Counsel for the Petitioner was called upon to point out from the application for condonation of delay as what was the sufficient cause and how the Petitioner has explained each day’s delay of about 933 days. The principal reason that can be discerned from the application for condonation of delay is that the Petitioner is illiterate person and that he came to know about such decree having been passed on account of entry effected in 7/12 extract. 4. Insofar as ground of illiteracy is concerned, that has been rightly rejected by the Court below, as it is well established position that ignorance of law is no excuse. The Court below has also recorded as of fact that both parties were represented by advocates althroughout. Insofar as the stand taken by the Petitioner that knowledge about the order was acquired on account of entry in the 7/12 extract, that is stated in paragraph-8 of the Petition. However, no date has been mentioned as to when that knowledge was acquired-as to the fact of recording of entry in 7/12 extract or the date thereof. It cannot be overlooked that delay is of over 933 days. Such long delay cannot be condoned without proper 3 explanation coming from the Petitioner. 5. Taking any view of the matter, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)