1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1568/2011 PRAVIN TANWE ..VS.. NASHIKANT PANDE & OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.G. Loney, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : MARCH 31, 2011. Heard Shri Loney, the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur on 29.11.2010, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the revision. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 29.11.2010, along with the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay, it appears that the M.R.T. did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal found that the explanation tendered by the petitioner for the delay of 2 years, 7 months and 2 days, was not satisfactory. The tribunal rightly held so, as the S.D.O. had passed the order which was sought to be challenged in the revision before the M.R.T.on4.4.2007. The petitioner claims to have got the information about the order in the 2 third week of June 2007, as the petitioner was out of station during the said period. It is then stated in the application by the petitioner that the certified copy was received on or about 16.6.2007. When the petitioner claimed to have become aware of the order in the third week of June 2007, the petitioner could not have obtained the certified copy on 15.6.2007. Moreover, though the certified copy was said to have been obtained on 15.6.2007, the revision application was not filed till 7.1.2010. It is stated in the application that after the certified copy was obtained, no steps could be taken to file the revision, as the petitioner was required to go out for earning his livelihood. It is also stated in the application that the petitioner is a poor and illiterate person and had arranged for funds for prosecuting the appeal before the S.D.O. from his relatives. It is stated in the application that he was under a bonafide impression that he would have required a huge amount for challenging the order of the S.D.O. before the Tribunal. Further, it is stated that the petitioner contacted his counsel at Amravati in the last week of December 2009 after obtaining the necessary funds. Lastly, it is stated that with the help of the counsel at Amravati, the petitioner contacted the counsel at Nagpur with the assistance of the counsel at Amravati to file the revision before the M.R.T. on 7.1.2010. The M.R.T.,rightly held that the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay were not acceptable in 3 law. The Tribunal rightly held that ignorance of law , illiteracy and poverty, could not have been the grounds for condonation of delay. In case they are held to be so, every man would plead that he is poor, illiterate and ignorant about the prevalent law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said that the petitioner is a responsible litigant or was bonafide trying to prosecute his matter at the earliest. The judgments reported in 2001 SC Page 176 and 1998 (7) SCC 123 and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Even otherwise, each case has to be considered on its own facts and it cannot be said that in the facts of the instant case, the Tribunal had exercised its discretion in a wrongful manner. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP