1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1149/2010 Abdul Rafique Abdul Mujib Vs. Madhukar V. Bode Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 10th JUNE 2010. 1] Heard finally. Rule returnable forthwith. Counsel waives service. By consent, the matter is finally disposed of. 2] The present writ petition is in terms of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner feels aggrieved by rejection of the application No.29/2009 by the learned Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli, whereby the petitioner desired to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. 3] The facts essential for present adjudication is, the petitioner herein agreed to sell a plot leased to him by MHADA in favour of the respondent in the writ 2 petition. The non-execution of the document resulted in filing the suit. The suit was dismissed. The First Appeal was preferred by the purchaser. The purchaser (Respondent in Writ) succeeded in the Appellate Court where the Appellate Court directed the purchaser plaintiff to obtain no objection certificate from MHADA and also to deposit Rs. 95,000/-. An objection to such exercise was raised in the Executing Court in terms of Section 47 CPC and the learned Executing Court denied the relief in terms of Section 47 CPC. Against the rejection of the same, CRA bearing No. 19/2010 was preferred by the present petitioner, which by separate order is dismissed today. 4] Now, the matter in the writ petition revolves as stated above, for rejection of application for condoning delay. The learned Principal District Judge while dealing with the aspects as to the delay was genuine or there was no knowledge to the petitioner as dealt with the conditions for non appearance in the matter. The learned Principal District Judge observed that there was no 3 sufficient cause, which prevented the present petitioner from preferring the appeal within time and consequently as stated above, he did not entertain condonation. The reasons assigned by the learned Judge, in fact situation, cannot be subject to be perverse or warranting interference that too in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. There was no jurisdictional error committed by learned Principal District Judge. There was no error of law to declare that the order under challenge was vitiated. 5] The other aspect in the matter is, pursuant to the furnishing of draft sale deed, the authorities of the Court have indeed executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff . Consequently, it is difficult to digest that the sale deed once executed by the Court should necessarily be reverted on technicalities. Non-furnishing of draft sale deed under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by itself, will not change colour and complexion of the matter as it was the defendant, who was required to comply the decree and indulge in chequered history of 4 the writ petition. Writ Petition lacks of merit. Dismissed Rule discharged. (K.U. Chandiwal ) JUDGE Ambulkar.