6. wp 1730­11.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1730 OF 2011 Ravindra Akaram Sawant @ Jamdar & Ors .. Petitioners Vs Chandramohan Tukaram Sawant @ Jamdar & Ors .. Respondents Mr. P.D. Dalvi for the Petitioners Mr. J.J. Bardekar for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 24th JUNE, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 9th December 2010 passed by the District Judge-1, Kolhapur rejecting the application made by the the petitioners (original applicants) for restoration of the earlier application for condonation of delay in making an application for setting aside an exparte decision in the appeal. 3. In the facts of the case, I am satisfied that that this petition is nothing but an attempt to delay execution of the decree under some pretext. The respondents had filed a suit against the 1 6. wp 1730­11.doc father of the present petitioners for partition. The suit was dismissed but Regular Civil Appeal No. 390 of 1989 against the decision was allowed and the decree for partition was passed. Thereafter, the respondents filed execution proceedings bearing no. 63 of 1997 for execution of decree. The notice of execution was served on the petitioners' father and the petitioners' father appeared in the execution proceedings on 14th April 1997 through Mr. D.D. Patil, Advocate. Five years thereafter, the present petitioners, who are heirs of the original judgment-debtor (defendant) filed Misc. Application No. 104 of 2002 before the District Court for setting aside exparte decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 390 of 1989 and for condonation of delay in making the application for restoration. The said Misc. Application No. 104 of 2002 was also dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioners on 13th July 2004. The petitioners thereafter did not make any application for restoration immediately but made an application for restoration of Misc. Application No. 104 of 2002 on 2nd March 2006 along with an application for condonation of delay in making the application. The facts speak for themselves. There have been continuous defaults and delays on the part of the petitioners and their father. Firstly,the petitioners / their father did not appear in the appeal and allowed the same to proceed exparte. Even after the knowledge of the decision of the Appeal and the knowledge of the execution proceedings filed for execution of 2 6. wp 1730­11.doc the decree, the petitioners did not file any application for restoration of Appeal but waited for five years and applied for setting aside the decree and condonation of delay of over five years. The petitioners allowed that application be dismissed in default and did not apply for restoration for two long years. In view of these facts, I am not inclined to entertain the petition and exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected summarily. 4. Interim order stands vacated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for direction to the parties to maintain status quo. In view of the facts that the original decree has been obtained in the year 1994 and for seventeen long years, the petitioners have successfully avoided the execution thereof, the request of the petitioners for stay is rejected. [ D.G. KARNIK, J ] 3 6. wp 1730­11.doc 4