gst 1 wp4197.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 4197 OF 2010. Mr.A. Parameswaran... .... .... ... ..Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... ... ..Respondents. Mr.R.G.Panchal, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayarikar, AGP for R.No.1. Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi, Adv. For R.No.2. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 22nd March, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing. By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 18.4.07 vide which an application filed by the present petitioner for condonation of delay in filing appeal came to be rejected. The petitioner had filed a suit for eviction. The said suit came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby an appeal was preferred along with an application for condonation of delay. Application is rejected. Hence the present petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not file the appeal within stipulated period as he was suffering from vision disability and further that the papers were handed over by his counsel at Thane to a lawyer who had kept the papers for sometime and thereafter returned the same stating that he does not practice in the Thane court. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the petition is filed after a period of three years from the date on which the impugned order is passed. It is submitted that no gst 2 wp4197.10.sxw interference is warranted. 3. No doubt that the Court has to be slow in interfering with the petitions which are filed after inordinate delay. However rule of non exercise of jurisdiction in such matters is not a hard and fast rule and is a rule of self restraint. In a given case in order to do justice Court may entertain the petition even if filed at belated stage. The dispute is between brothers inter se. Learned trial Court has come to a finding that the property in question has been constructed by the petitioner-plaintiff. However the said suit has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove his title. It can thus be seen that the petitioner has an arguable case on merits. In that view of the matter, I find that instead of foreclosing the doors of justice on technical grounds, it will be appropriate that the parties get the dispute resolved in accordance with law. In so far as prejudice that is caused to the respondents that can be compensated by saddling the petitioner some costs. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). However this shall be subject to costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Costs to be deposited in the Appellate Court within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of costs respondents would be at liberty to withdraw the same.