1 WP-8143.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8143 OF 2011 Smt.Sumanbai Rangnath Jadhav & ors. : Petitioners. versus Bajirao Laxman Jadhav and ors. : Respondents. Mr. Rameshwar M Gite for the Petitioners. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 17th November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 12/9/2011 passed by the learned District Judge No.2, Niphad by which order the application for codonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the Appeal came to be rejected. 2 The Petitioners are the original Defendants in a suit filed by the Respondents herein being Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 1995. The said suit has been decreed against the Petitioners/Defendants and one of the relief granted was that the Petitioners who were the defendants to the said suit to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of 7 R land which is an encroached area to the Plaintiffs within two months of the said decree. The said decree was put in execution. The Petitioners appeared in the said Execution Proceedings No.67 of 2008 on 30/9/2008. Prior thereto, it seems that the Petitioners had filed an Appeal some time in October 2007 against the said decree. The Appeal on 2 WP-8143.11.sxw account of none appearance of the Petitioners came to be dismissed for non- prosecution on 29/10/2007. The application for restoration wherein the instant impugned order came to be passed, was filed on 31/1/2011 that is after a period of 3 1/2 years. The reasons mentioned by the Petitioners for seeking condonation of delay was that the area in question was inundated with floods in the year 2006 and 2007 and the Petitioners, on account of the said fact, were not in proper mental condition. The trial Court in view of the fact that the Petitioners had appeared in the Execution Proceedings on 30/9/2008 did not give credence to the said case of the Petitioners. The trial Court observed that the decree is one for handing over possession of the encroached area to the Decree Holders, and therefore, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the Petitioners/Defendants. 3 In so far as matters of condonation of delay are concerned, though the Courts are vested with the power to condone delay, the said power has to be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for good reasons. In the instant case, the reasons mentioned by the Petitioners for seeking condonation of delay did not find favour with the trial Court. In that view of the matter, there is no warrant to interdict with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]