Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4471 OF 2009 Sadashiv Anna Shinde ... Petitioner v/s Vasant Anna Shinde & ors. ... Respondents Mrs.Neeta P. Karnik for the petitioner. Mr.Vinod Jadhav for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 24TH JUNE, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Ad-hod District Judge-1, Satara, on 2.4.2009, by which the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in preferring his appeal against the decree passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.131 of 1993 has been dismissed. 2. The suit for partition was filed by the respondent No.2 and a counter-claim was filed by the respondent No.1. This counter-claim was allowed in the year 1993. The respondent No.1 filed Regular Darkhast No.12 of 2002 for execution of the preliminary decree. It appears that the final decree was passed on 20.2.2008. After this decree was passed, the petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal. Undisputedly, that appeal is delayed by 68 days and, therefore, the petitioner had also filed an application for condoning the delay. The reason mentioned for the delay was that compromise talks were continuing between the parties who are brothers. The Court has held that, since the partition dispute was pending for the last 15 years between the brothers and the petitioner wanted to frustrate the partition decree, there was no need to condone the delay. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned order ought not to be set aside in view of the fact that the reason given by the petitioner that negotiations were in progress between the parties is incorrect. He points out that the possession warrant was issued on 10.3.2008, after the final decree was passed. He further submits that, had any negotiations being in progress, the respondents would not have insisted on a possession warrant against the petitioner. 4. The impugned order does not deal with the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the respondent. There is no reference at all to the possession warrant being issued in the impugned order. The appellate Court has not condoned the delay only because the partition dispute was pending for more than 15 years. While doing so, the appellate Court has lost sight of the fact that the final decree was passed on 20.2.2008. 5. In my opinion, the reasons for refusing to condone the delay cannot be accepted and the order of the Trial Court must be set aside. However, in view of the fact that there is a delay of 68 days’ in filing the appeal, the delay is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/- to the respondents. Costs shall be paid as a condition precedent within two weeks from today. 6. In the event the costs are paid, the appeal shall be heard on merits. The appellate Court is requested to complete the hearing of the appeal within three months from today. In case the petitioner does not co-operate in the matter for a quick disposal of the appeal, the appellate Court will take necessary steps in the matter in accordance with the law. 7. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. .....