IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 327 OF 2011 CAETANO REBELLO ... Petitioner Versus ROSARIO REBELLO AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Sudin Usgaokar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 29th June, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 19th May, 2011 passed by Ad hoc District Judge-II, Panaji in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.57/2011 by which the application for condonation of delay in an appeal preferred challenging the order dated 9th April, 2008, 16th September, 2009 and the judgment and order dated 21st November, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda in Inventory proceedings No.26/1999/c has been dismissed on the ground that no sufficient case has been made out for condoning the delay. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that in so far as the order dated 9th April, 2008 is concerned, there is absolutely no justification as to why the petitioner did not challenge the said order till the petitioner chose to challenge the final judgment and order dated 21st November, 2009 passed by the Inventory Court. No doubt, application for condonation of delay has to be liberally considered, but at the same time it is to be noted that expiry of period of limitation creates certain rights in favour of the other party as has been held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. I find that the order dismissing application seeking condonation of delay cannot be said to have been passed in illegal exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the petition is summarily dismissed. 4. The dismissal of this petition would not come in the way of the petitioner from availing of any other remedy if available in law. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA