: 1 : 1141-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1141 of 2011 Smt. Banubai Hussain Shaikh .. Petitioner v/s. Smt. Maimoonabi Sayyed Ahmed & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the petitioner Mr. P.S. Dani for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 20th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. The Heirship Certificate proceedings were initiated in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wada, Dist. Thane in Misc. Application No. 9 of 1998. The said proceedings were granted. Thereafter, Civil Misc. Application No.66 of 2003 came to be filed by respondent no.1 and another lady by name Smt. Shareefa I. Shaikh for recalling of said Heirship Certificate. The said application was granted by order dated 14th July, 2003 by learned 4th Additional District Court, Thane. : 2 : 1141-11-wp=.sxw The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order dated 14th July, 2003 filed Civil Misc. Application No.66 of 2003 in the District Court at Thane. Since the application was filed beyond the period of limitation, Misc. Application No.96 of 2010 was filed for condonation of delay. 2. The said application has been rejected by learned District Judge-2, Thane by his order dated 29th November, 2010. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. The petitioner approached the District Court vide Misc. Application No.96 of 2011 by contending that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 14th July, 2003 which was passed against petitioner thereby claiming that recalling of the Heirship Certificate came to their knowledge on 25th February, 2010 for the first time when a certified copy of the same was filed in the revenue proceedings at Jawhar. Learned advocate Mr. Patil, therefore, submitted that once it is accepted that order dated 14th July, 2003 came to the knowledge of petitioner from 25th February, 2010, the delay of about 2 months in filing the application will have to be condoned. He submitted that learned District Judge erred in rejecting the application. He also submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the delay is not properly explained and the delay is much more than 2 months, costs can be imposed upon the petitioner and : 3 : 1141-11-wp=.sxw that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to prosecute the proceedings filed before the District Court. So far as the question of petitioner coming to know the order dated 14th July, 2003, the petitioner say that she came to know about order dated 14th July, 2003 on 25th February, 2010. This is not supported by proper documents. It is on the basis of the bare word. In fact learned Counsel Mr. Dani appearing on behalf of the respondents pointed out that in the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division in the proceedings before the said Authority, said Authority has specifically observed that the application for recalling the Heirship Certificate was granted by order dated 14th July, 2003. It is not as if that the petitioner was not attending to the revenue proceedings. 3. In my view, the word of the petitioner that petitioner came to know about the order for the first time on 25th February, 2010 is falsified on the basis of the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. Hence it is observed, that the petitioner has not come out with appropriate facts to seek condonation of delay. The delay is certainly more than 2 years because the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division is of the year 2008. In my view, the stand of the petitioner that the delay : 4 : 1141-11-wp=.sxw ought to have been condoned cannot be accepted. The stand of the petitioner that payment of costs would compensate the respondents cannot be accepted so far as this case is concerned. Hence, petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission by passing following order. ORDER (i) Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)