(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 1394 of 2009 Khemsingh s/o. Shamsingh Jamindar .. Petitioner. versus 1. Shamsingh s/o. Shobhasingh Jamindar, (died through L.R.), 2. Narayankaur @ Tuljabai w/o. Shamsingh, 3. Ranjitsingh s/o. Shamsingh Jamindar, 4. Balaji s/o. Vithal Pilpimpore, 5. Shankar s/o. Hiraman Giria. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. H.I. Pathan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Respondent no.1 dead. Respondent nos.2 and 3 served (Absent). Mr. N.N. Chitlange, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 5. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16TH JULY 2009. (2) COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23rd September 2008, passed by the learned District Judge-3, Nanded, below Exhibit 1 in Misc. (RJE) No. 172/2006, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner, for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of the application for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed in default. 2. The petitioner had filed a suit for partition. The suit is dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, Regular Civil Appeal No. 65/2000 was preferred by the petitioner. The said appeal was dismissed in default on 10th October 2003. Since the said appeal was dismissed, an application for restoration, bearing no. 160/2003, of the appeal came to be filed. The said application also came to be dismissed. Noticing that the said application was dismissed, another application for restoration of the said application came to be filed. Since the said application was filed beyond limitation period, an application for condonation of delay was filed. The same is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3. Mr. H.I. Pathan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the appellate court has grossly erred in rejecting the application. He submits that in the interest of justice, it was necessary that the application ought to have been allowed. 4. It can be seen that the only reason given in the application was that the lawyer for the petitioner had not informed him about either dismissal of the appeal or dismissal of the application for restoration. It is submitted that since the lawyer had acted in negligent manner on two (3) occasions, the petitioner had changed the lawyer. However, nothing has been brought on record as to what steps have been taken by the petitioner against a negligent lawyer. 5. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner has been thoroughly negligent. Firstly, the appeal itself was dismissed in default. Secondly, the application which was filed for restoration of the appeal, also came to be dismissed in default. Thirdly, the application for restoration of the said application was also filed beyond the period of limitation. In that view of the matter, I do not find that the appellate court has erred in rejecting the application. 6. The scope of interference by this court would be permissible only if it is found that the discretion exercised by the lower court has been exercised in a perverse manner. No perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the appellate court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp1394