IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 795 OF 2010 SHRI BABURAO MANGUESH KAREKAR ... Petitioner Versus MR. RUI UBALDIN DA GAMA, ... Respondent Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Karpe, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 23rd March, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Karpe, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge, Mapusa in Misc. Civil Appeal No.69/2010 by which the appeal preferred against the order dated 25.9.09 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Civil Misc. Application No.30/07/A in Regular Civil Suit No.134/01 has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above suit filed against the respondent seeking recovery of rent. The trial Court on 14.3.07 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for non prosecution. An application for condonation of delay and for restoration of the suit was filed on 4.8.07. The trial Court found that no sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay and consequently dismissed the application. The lower appellate Court also concurred with the view taken by the trial Court. 4. Mr. Lotlikar, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana V/s. Ujagar Singh & Ors. (2010 ALL SCR 2321) submitted that delay ought to have been condoned by both the Courts, who have erred in not condoning the delay causing serious prejudice to the petitioner/plaintiff on account of the fault of his advocate. 5. Mr. Karpe, placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh (dead) V/s. Jagdish Singh and others {(2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 685} submitted that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay and the petitioner is guilty of gross negligence and no case has been made out for interference with both the orders in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned order. The records clearly disclose that the petitioner has been negligent and both the Courts have found that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. No doubt, the term "sufficient cause" has to be liberally construed as held by the Apex Court. At the same time it must be remembered that once the suit is dismissed for non prosecution, certain rights accrue in favour of the defendants and the same cannot be rightly interfered and in such case the plaintiff has to make out sufficient cause for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit. In the present case, the conduct of the petitioner is not such deserving any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. oc