bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3423 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 3423 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 3423 OF 2009 Shri Lingappa Ramappa Dhawaleshwar ... Petitioner v/s Special Recovery Officer/Chairman, Kupwad Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., Kupwad & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.D.Pise for the petitioner. Mr.T.S.Ingale for the respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 4TH MAY, 2009 4TH MAY, 2009 4TH MAY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court dated 13.3.2009. The petitioner’s contention before the appellate Court was that he was not able to remain present in Court when the award was passed against him because he was not served with the summons by the Court. The Co-operative Court has found that the petitioner has filed the appeal 4 years 6 months and 11 days late after expiry of the appeal period and that he had not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay. The only contention of the petitioner was that he was not aware 2 of the proceedings before the Co-operative Court and it was only when the property was to be sold that he approached the appellate Court. 2. The petitioner now contends that he had not borrowed the loan which the respondent Bank alleges that he had availed. The petitioner further contends that such a loan has not been availed of by him and therefore he should not be penalised for not approaching the appellate Court immediately. 3. Several judgments have been cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the issue as to how Courts should consider the question of condoning the delay. In all these judgments, the proposition is that each day’s delay need not be explained, however, the person seeking condonation of delay must show sufficient cause for the delay. The Courts have also expressed the view, while considering the question of delay, that the approach should not be pedantic but liberal. There can be no quarrel with these propositions of law inunciated by various Courts. 4. However, in the facts of the present case, in my opinion, these judgments have no application. The petitioner in this case chose to remain absent although 3 the summons was served on him as noted by the Co-operative Court while deciding the dispute for recovery of Rs.9,97,264/-. The loan of Rs.4,12,000/- was availed of by the petitioner on 23.6.1998 and has remained unpaid. The Co-operative Court has considered the fact that, despite service the petitioner chose not to remain present. The order of the Co-operative Court was passed on 8.9.2004. The appellate Court has passed its order dated 13.3.2009 and has found that the application for condoning the delay has been preferred after an inordinate delay of 4 years 6 months and 11 days. 5. In these circumstances, I am of the view that there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Writ petition rejected. 7. After completion of this order, Mr.Pise, learned advocate for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court, states that the petitioner be granted liberty to deposit some amount out of approximately Rs.15 lacs which the Bank claims is due and payable to it. In the event the petitioner deposits with the Bank Rs.5 lacs within a period of three weeks from today, the appeal will be registered and heard on 4 merits. In case, the amount as stipulated aforesaid is not deposited, the order rejecting the appeal will stand confirmed.