1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3306 OF 2005. Laxman Annasaheb Zarekar and others ... Petitioners. Versus Anusayabai W/o Raosaheb Babar and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.B.Kale, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 4. Respondent No.3 dead. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.23 OF 2006. Laxman S/o Annasaheb Zarekar since died through his L.Rs. Arun S/o Laxman Zarekar and others ... Petitioners. Versus 2 Anusayabai W/o Raosaheb Babar and others ... Respondents. Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 served. Respondent No.3 dead. Respondent No.2A served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 16.06.2009. PER COURT 1. The petitions are filed against order rendered by the learned District Judge, Beed, whereby delay condonation application filed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-title i.e. Laxman Annasaheb Zarekar, came to be rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel. 3. The application filed by deceased Laxman reveals that he was medically advised to avoid traveling and, therefore, had executed a power of Attorney dated 15.5.1995 in favour of his son by name Arun. Said Arun was looking 3 after the litigation. The appeal was filed after two years, three months and 5 days. There is hardly any explanation given in the application for condonation of the delay. There is no statement in the application that the intimation about the impugned judgment dated 5.2.1993 was not received by the deceased applicant - Laxman (plaintiff). In absence of any satisfactory explanation, the learned District Judge was right in holding that the delay could not be condoned for want of sufficient reasons. 4. It further appears that during pendency of the application for delay condonation, the original plaintiff - applicant Laxman died on 16.1.1998. His legal representatives belatedly filed the application for substitution. They did not file any separate application for condonation of delay caused in filing application for substitution and for setting aside the abatement caused due to the death of original plaintiff Laxman. Considering the attitude of the petitioners, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that there was carelessness in 4 pursuing the remedy. Hence, the applications for delay condonations came to be dismissed. I do not find any arbitrariness or perversity committed by the learned District Judge while rejecting the application. For, there is no satisfactory cause shown as to why the General Power of Attorney Holder, namely, Arun Laxman was unable to file the appeals within the stipulated period. Whatever reason is given in the application seems to be about heart disease of deceased Laxman who was unable to undertake the travel. Admittedly, he was not looking after the litigation. Therefore, his difficulty was of no avail for the purpose of delay condonation. 5. Considering the foregoing reasons, there appears no merit in the petitions and, therefore, the same are dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp330605