1. Heard Shri S.S. Halkude, learned counsel for the petitioners-original applicants and Shri P.S. Dighe, learned counsel for the respondent-original respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

3. The petitioners-original applicants have challenged the order dated 27.11.2009, passed by the learned II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur, in Miscellaneous Application No.274 of 2007, thereby rejecting the present petitioners' application for condonation of delay, and prayed for quashment thereof.

4. The applicants-petitioners herein had filed R.C.S. No.589 of 2004 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, against the respondent herein, for specific performance and re-conveyance and for possession of the suit land. The said suit was initially transferred to the court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur and subsequently to the court of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur. The petitioners-applicants had engaged one Shri K.N.Patil as their Advocate in the said suit. However, it is the contention of the applicants-petitioners herein that their lawyer could not get the date of hearing of the said suit inadvertently and, therefore, consequently the said suit came to be dismissed in default on 19.7.2006.

5. It is also the contention of the petitioners that present petitioner No.1 was in charge of the said suit and on 12.9.2007, he came to know about dismissal of the said suit. Thereafter, he immediately applied for certified copy of order of dismissal of the suit, which was received by him on 27.9.2007 and thereafter he preferred application i.e. Miscellaneous Application No. 274 of 2007 for condonation of delay of about 1 year, 2 months and 14 days, along with application for setting aside the dismissal order dated 19.7.2006, on 3.10.2007. The contentions of the petitioners-applicants are that, the said delay was not wilful, deliberate and intentional and the lawyer of the applicants had not informed them the date of hearing of the said suit and, therefore, the litigant should not suffer for inadvertence or folly on the part of his advocate and also that the suit involves valuable stake, as well as the applicants were not negligent.

6. The Respondent has filed the say at Exhibit 17 to the said applicant and denied the averments therein. It was also contended that the suit was pending since 2004 and the respondent denied that the applicants' lawyer had no knowledge of the date of the said suit and also contended that none of the applicants appeared in the matter on 19.7.2006 and, therefore, the suit was dismissed on 19.7.2006. It was also contended by the Respondent that, petitioner No.1-origi.applicant No.1 himself is a lawyer and attends the court regularly and was in contact of their Advocate in the suit. It is submitted that delay of more than one year is inordinate and the said delay was not explained properly and the applicants failed to give sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, it is submitted that the application for condonation of delay bears no substance and hence, same deserves to be rejected.

7. After considering rival contentions, learned II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur, rejected the said application, on 27.11.2009, and being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of rejection, the applicants-petitioners herein have impugned the same in the present writ petition and prayed for quashment thereof.

8. Shri S.S.Hadkule, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the delay of one year, 2 months and 14 days caused in filing the application for condonation of delay along with application for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit, is not wilful, deliberate and intentional and same was caused due to inadvertence/negligence of the Advocate and the applicants-petitioners herein should not suffer for the mistake or