1 wp2268-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2268 OF 2011 The Sanmitra Sahkari Bank Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s. M/s. White Way Dry Cleaners & Others .. Respondents ..... Mr. Prashant Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. Dhanesh R. Patekar i/b. Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for respondent No.4. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : AUGUST 23, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The challenge is to the Judgment and order dated 30th December, 2006 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in a Revision Application filed by respondent No.5. By the impugned Judgment and order, the Divisional Joint Registrar allowed the Revision Application and the Judgment and order passed by the Special Recovery Officer has been set aside. For challenging the said impugned order passed on 30th December, 2006, the present petition was lodged on 14th September, 2010. In the petition, there is no explanation for the delay of more than three years. Therefore, an additional affidavit was 2 wp2268-11 permitted to be filed by the petitioner for explaining the delay. The only explanation offered is in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit which reads thus: “3. I say that after 30th December 2006 the Respondent No.2 has personally visited the Bank and requested me to grant time to settle the account. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 visited the petitioner Bank on 20th January 2009 and deposited amount of Rs.13,000/- in Loan Account and ask further time for repayment. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “-1” is the copy of the Account Statement for the loan account from 20/2/2001 and 1/1/2011. Therefore the petitioner has not challenged the said order. Therefore the husband of the respondent No.5 Mr. Anil Sawant along with Shri Pravin Juvatkar a husband of the Municipal Corporator has visited the Bank and met me, sought further time to settle the account. In view of the aforesaid the petitioner could not challenge the order passed by the Ld. Div. Joint Registrar.” 2. Even assuming that what is set out in the said paragraph is correct that is no explanation for the long delay of more than 3 and ½ years. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary remedy under the Constitution of India. In absence of any explanation for such a long delay, the petition cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)