1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7354 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7355 OF 2009 Chintamani Pandurang Sawant and others Petitioners versus Santosh Madhusudan Potdar Respondent Nitin Mulye for petitioners. Pradeep M. Patil for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th March 2010 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These petitions arise out of cross suits filed by the parties. In the suit filed by the respondents, an application for temporary injunction was allowed by which the petitioners were restrained from disturbing the alleged possession of the respondents over the suit property. The application for temporary injunction made by the petitioners in their suit was dismissed. Both the orders were passed on 25th June 2008. Appeals were preferred by the petitioners on 24th October 2008 along with applications for condonation of delay. By the impugned orders, the said applications 2 have been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that delay was only of 23 days which has been satisfactorily explained in the applications for condonation of delay. He submitted that the learned District Judge has adopted hyper-technical approach. He submitted that the delay ought to have been condoned. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was every justification for the learned District Judge to reject the applications for condonation of delay. He pointed out that the impugned judgment and order shows that during the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners in fact suggested that the suits should be expedited so that rights between the parties can be finally determined. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions states that the advocate appearing for the petitioners had not made any such statement which is recorded in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment and order. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The 3 order of temporary injunction is operating against the petitioners from 25th June 2008. There is no injunction granted in favour of the petitioners from that date. In paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge has observed thus : "4. ... ... It is because since 13th September, 2008 Appellate Court is situated at Mangaon, District Raigad. Really Appellant was cautious about his/their rights then it was possible for him to file the appeal on 13th September, 2008 or on the next day. But, at any case it was not on 21/10/2008. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the delay application cannot be said to be sufficient to condone the delay. However, during the course of arguments on behalf of the Appellant and Respondent that the matter be expedited in the Trial Court, so that the rights of the parties will be determined as early as possible. The submissions made by both the Advocates seems to be quite reasonable. Already, the Trial Court has decided the application by its Judgment/Order and if this application will not be granted there is no prejudice to the parties. The Appellant have every right to put up their case before the Trial Court, to get it decide on merits and the Appellant have again remedy to approach to the Appellate Court, if any order passed against them." (Emphasis added) What is recorded above clearly suggest that there was a concession made by the learned advocate who appeared for the petitioners before the learned District Judge that instead of condoning the delay and hearing the appeals against interim orders, hearing of the main suits should be expedited. If according to the petitioners the aforesaid statements were incorrectly recorded, the petitioners could have approached the same Court for clarification. The impugned 4 orders have been passed on 15th June 2009. Thus, considering the statements made on behalf of the petitioners, the learned District Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay. There is no merit in the petitions. The writ petitions are rejected. Hearing of the suits is expedited and the Trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the hearing of the suits on or before 31st October 2010. 6. All contentions of the parties on merits of the suits are expressly kept open. It is obvious that the suits shall be decided finally without being influenced by the tentative observations made in the impugned order. (A.S.OKA, J.)