1 WP 5948/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5948 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. P.J. Pawar for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. The writ petition is directed against an order rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 2. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 17 April 2003 under Order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for non­ appearance of the petitioners and their advocate. The application for setting aside the order was made on 18 April 2006, i.e. after 2 WP 5948/10 lapse of 3 years with an application for condonation of delay. The application was barred by limitation by 2 years and 11 months. The only ground made in the application for condonation of delay was that the petitioner was residing at a far away place and, therefore, there was a communication gap. It was claimed that the petitioners were minor (vKku) and poor and, therefore, he could not apply for restoration within time. The petitioners before me were the applicants before the District Court. Their ages are between 35 and 55 years as mentioned in the petition. Therefore, the contention that the petitioners were minors is incorrect and cannot be accepted. Similarly, the ground that the petitioners were residing at a place 70 kms. away from their advocate which prevented them from communicating with the lawyer cannot be accepted. In today’s world, distance of 70 kms. cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as uncommunicable distance. A bald statement regarding poverty 3 WP 5948/10 without any details of incomes of them cannot be accepted. Maruti, who is original the applicant no.1 before the District Court, appears to be residing in Mumbai in R.C.F. Colony. No explanation has been given what he is doing in Mumbai and what are his earnings. His occupation is shown to be agriculture. It is not known how he is managing agriculture from Mumbai to Kolhapur and if he could pursue agriculture from a distance of more than 400 km. between Mumbai and Kolhapur, the reason why he could not contact his advocate for all the years, is not mentioned. 3. The view taken by the lower appellate court that the delay was not sufficiently explained is a possible finding of fact requiring no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)