ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioners were defendants in suit filed by respondent for recovery of possession in respect of certain house property. They participated in the trial. The suit was decreed on merits. The petitioners preferred an appeal after lapse of six months from the date of pronouncement of the Judgment. They moved an· application for condonation of delay caused in filing of the appeal. Their application (MCA No. 95/2005) was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Parbhani. The petitioners challenge this order.

3. The petitioners averred that due to poverty they could not prefer the appeal within prescribed period of limitation. According to them, the delay should have been condoned by taking liberal approach. The petitioners averred that the petitioner No. 1 was suffering from illness for certain period between May and August, 2005. They submit that cause shown by them was sufficient for the condonation of delay.

4. Heard counsel for the parties.

5. Crux of the problem is as to whether there is some plausible and reasonable explanation given by the petitioners in their application (MCA No. 9512005) for condonation of delay caused in preferring the appeal and that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with on the ground that it is perverse or patently erroneous.

6. Before I proceed to consider legal aspects of the matter, it is worthwhile to note that in the application filed before the learned District Judge, there is absolutely no whisper about so-called illness of the petitioner No. 1 during the relevant period. This is not the case in which the ex parte order came to be passed against the petitioners. Even assuming that petitioner No. 1 did suffer from some illness, during the period between May to October, 2005 as averred in para 5 of the present petition, then also it is difficult to consider such ground inasmuch petitioner No. 2 is her husband and could have pursued the remedy of appeal. Such ground is conspicuously absent from the application dated 1-12-2005 filed before the learned District Judge and appears to have been carved out while filing the present petition.

7. The factual position is manifestly clear on bare perusal of the application for condonation filed by the petitioners before the learned District Judge. The only relevant statement in the application is thus:

"The delay caused in preferring the appeal is of six months. The caused delay is not intentional one. The appellants are poor and helpless persons. If the delay is not condoned appellant may cause irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The suit was for recovery of possession and present appellants are tenants. If the delay is not condoned then appellants will become shelterless."

8. The perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioners remained absent before the Executing Court after service of the notice of the execution petition. The execution petition was adjourned for their appearance on 20th September, 2005. The Executing Court issued attachment warrant thereafter. The record would show that the petitioners appeared on 24-10-2005 before the Executing Court through their Advocate·Shri B. R. Khadase. Significantly, they did not then raise any objection in the execution proceedings. An attachment warrant was issued on 18-11-2005. It appears that when the Court Bailiff visited the premises for execution of the warrant then, the petitioners sought time with an assurance that they would vacate the premises on or about 5-12-2005. The time was granted to them by the respondent as has been observed in the. impugned order. Needless to say, since the date of the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioners were very well aware about the Judgment rendered against them. They had a notice of the execution petition too.

9. The only ground raised in their application was that there was unintentional delay, they are poor, and he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document