1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 850 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri V.S. Talkute for the Petitioners. Shri V.S. Tadke for Respondent No.1. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 19th January, 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. 2. The Petitioners are the Defendants in a suit filed by the Respondents. The suit was decreed on 2nd March, 2001 and an appeal was preferred by the Petitioners on 14th June, 2007 along with an application for condonation of delay. By the impugned order, the Appellate court has declined to condone the delay of 6 years, 1 month and 10 days. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners invited my attention to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. He pointed out that 2 the case made out by the Petitioners is that they were not informed the date fixed in the suit by their Advocate. He further pointed out that the Petitioners became aware of the decree on 24th May, 2007 and within one month therefrom, an appeal was preferred. He submitted that the delay will have to be condoned. 4. I have considered the submissions. The Appellate Court found that there is no explanation for a long deay of 6 years. In the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondents, it is pointed out that one Shri Baburao Deshmukh filed a Civil suit against the Petitioners in the month of February, 2002. In the said suit, in March, 2006, a copy of the decree which was sought to be challenged by the Petitioners was filed on record. 5. Considering the fact that there is no explanation for gross delay of 6 years and there is material on record to show that even prior to 24th May, 2007, the Petitioners were aware of the impugned decree, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)