IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.42 OF 2009 Shri.Dattatraya Ramchandra Dhondale ...Petitioner V/s. Shri.Sopan Pandit Shelar ...Respondent ...... Mr.V.G.Pashave for Petitioner. None for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 16, 2009. JANUARY 16, 2009. JANUARY 16, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. There is no good reason to overturn the concurrent view taken by the two Courts below that no sufficient cause was made out by the Petitioner. That finding of fact has been reached on appreciation of evidence which was produced by the Petitioner about enmity between him and his brother, which has been rejected for the reasons recorded by the two Courts below. That view is a : 2 : possible view. It is, therefore, not open for this Court to overturn the said concurrent opinion and take a different view of the matter. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that the Respondent gave no objection in Application No.120 of 2006 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Having done so, the question of opposing the present application for restoration did not arise and for that reason, the Courts below ought to have allowed the application preferred by the Petitioner. This argument deserves to be stated to be rejected. In that, the fact that Respondent did not oppose application of condonation of delay for filing appeal does not necessarily mean that the Respondent was bound and obliged to give no objection for allowing the application for restoration which indeed was required to proceed on its own merits. 4. In the circumstances, this Petition is devoid of merits. Dismissed. : 3 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.