239caz359.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No. 359 of 2010 in L.P.A. St. No.5019 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.2398 of 2009 (D) (Likhan Urkudaji Meshram vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: S. A. Bobde and Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ. Date : 23/09/2010. Heard Mr. M.V.Samarth, Adv. for the appellant/applicant, Mr.R.V.Shah, Adv. for respondent no.3 and Mr.Jayant Mokadam, Adv. for respondent no.6. Civil Application No.359 of 2010 is filed by the applicant for condonation of delay of 173 days caused in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The reason given for the delay is wrong advice given by the then Counsel when the learned Single Judge has decided the matter against the applicant. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that, due to wrong advice given by the Counsel, instead of filing Letters Patent Appeal, revision was filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar; however, when the applicant approached the present Counsel, he advised the applicant to 239caz359.10.odt 2 . file Letters Patent Appeal and therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal was filed along with this application for condonation of delay of 173 days. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the revision application preferred before the Divisional Joint Registrar was dismissed on 15.3.2010 and on the same day, this L.P.A. was filed. The fact of dismissal of the revision application is not disclosed by the applicant in the application for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel further points that the applicant has also filed a Writ Petition challenging the recovery certificate issued by the respondents and the said petition is pending before this Court wherein the process of possession by the respondent is stayed. In order to condone the delay, it is necessary for the applicant to come out with sufficient good reasons. In the present matter, we are not satisfied about the ground for causing of the delay mentioned therein. It is difficult to accept that the applicant was not aware about the dismissal of the revision on 15.3.2010 when, on the same day, he filed L.P.A. Suppression of the fact is apparent. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this application. Consequently, the Civil 239caz359.10.odt 3 . Application No.359 of 2010 is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais