1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6296 OF 2008. Rama S/o Fakira Ghule through L.R. Navnath S/o Rambhau Ghule. ... Petitioner. Versus Nivruti S/o Walu Ghule and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Bhumkar, advocate for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 08.03.2010. PER COURT 1. Heard counsel. 2. The petitioner is the legal 2 representative of deceased defendant No.2 against whom decree was rendered in suit (RCS No. 282/1979). 3. The suit came to be decreed on 2.11.1998. It appears that deceased defendant No.2 Rama did not prefer any appeal against adverse finding and decree during his life time. He died on 8.11.1999. It further appears that he had filed objection in the Darkhast proceedings of R.D.No.1/1999 which was instituted by the Respondents (D.H.). His objection application was rejected by the Executing Court. 4. The petitioner himself filed his objection petition in the Execution Proceedings after death of his father i.e. defendant No.2 Rama S/o Fakira. The objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 8.1.2002 by the Executing Court. Needless to say, the petitioner was verymuch aware of the adverse decree rendered against his father. The petitioner is a Professor in a local College. Obviously, it can not be said that he is ignorant. Clinching 3 question is why after dismissal of his objection petitoin on 8.1.2002, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the decree. Admittedly, he filed the appeal along with delay condonation application (MCA No.21/2004) on 20.2.2004 i.e. after delay of more than two (2) years. There is hardly any explanation of delay of two (2) years out of total delay of 5 years and three (3) months. 5. Mr.Thombre, invited my attention to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others" AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 and "Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and others" AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1201. The Apex Court held that in matter pertaining to delay codonation, liberal approach should be adopted. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in "State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others" 2008 (4) ALL MR 856, held that such explanation of "procedural hassles" can not be regarded as sufficient. In "Special Land 4 Acquisition Officer and another Vs. Jose Prazeres DE Piedade Pinto and others" 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 318, it is held that explanation must be satisfactory. 7. The adoption of liberal approach does not mean total ignorance of no tangible explanation regarding the delay. The liberal approach may be taken when there is some plausible explanation furnished. It does not mean that rigors of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are diluted so much so that the expression "sufficient cause" is obliterated from the statute book. The absence of any expalnation, much less satisfactory explanation for the delay of more than two (2) years prior to filing of the appeal is the reason for rejection of request for condoation of delay. There appears nothing perverse in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp629608