1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1212 OF 2009 Gulabchand R. Sanghrajka. ..Petitioner. V/s. Kastur Nagaji Chedda & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b. Mr.Shailesh Shukla for petitioner. Mr.P.S.Dani for Respondent No.1. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 3, 2009. DATE : MARCH 3, 2009. DATE : MARCH 3, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I am in agreement with the objection raised by the Respondent No.1 that the present Petition should be thrown out on the ground of laches. It is not in dispute that the impugned order was passed as back as on 15th October, 2005. Copy thereof was made available to the Petitioner on 16th December, 2005. However, present Petition came to be filed on 2nd December, 2008. The only statement in the Writ Petition to justify the said inordinate delay can be seen in the paragraph-9 of the Petition, where the Petitioner has stated that he is not keeping good 2 health and not property advised by the Counsel appearing for him. No other statement appears in the entire Petition to justify delay of about three years. 3. The statement made in the Petition is countered by the Respondent No.1 by filing reply affidavit dated 5th February, 2009. In the reply affidavit, the Respondent has brought on record that the Petitioner during the interregnum period was attending several other proceedings on several dates, about 40 in all, which position is substantiated from the roznama in the said proceedings. Besides, the Petitioner had filed one more suit in 2008 against another Defendant, which was eventually withdrawn being compromised. Thus, neither case made out in the Petition that the Pensioner was not keeping well and that he was not properly advised, can be accepted. 4. Indeed, the Counsel for the Petitioner had requested for time to deny the assertions made in the reply affidavit. However, that request has been turned down as the reply affidavit was served on the Petitioner’s advocate as early as on 6th February, 2009 and complete copy on 13th February, 2009. There 3 was enough time for the Petitioner to file rejoinder, if he was so advised. Moreover, the matter was listed on 9th February, 2009, when it was specifically adjourned to 3th March, 2009. The Petitioner was aware about this date. In the circumstances, request for adjournment was rejected and the Counsel for the Petitioner was permitted to proceed with the argument on the basis of denial. 5. As aforesaid, the facts brought on record by the Respondents are indisputable. Taking those facts, it necessarily follows that the ground made out in the Petition is false to the knowledge of the Petitioner. In any case, no details as to what was the nature of ill-health has been placed on record. Besides, the general statement is made that the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner did not properly advised the Petitioner. That is not enough. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he was advised not to file present Petition. 6. Taking any view of the matter, there is no reason to show indulgence in the fact situation of the present case and the Petition is dismissed on the ground of laches. 4 7. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Court at best can impose exemplary cost on the Petitioner to compensate the Respondent and in any case, entertaining the present Petition will not cause any prejudice to the Respondent, as no adverse order is invited at this stage against the Respondent tenant. This argument is an argument of desperation. 8. As aforesaid, in the fact situation of the present case, no indulgence can be shown to the Petitioner who has approached the Court with unclean hands and on the basis of incorrect and false statement to justify delay of over three years. . Hence, Petition is dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)