SAMPAT KISAN GAVALI Vs. TANAJI SUKA GAVALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1986 which was decreed ex-parte by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pimpalgaon - Baswant, on 28th September, 1987. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred Civil Appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Nashik, on 30th April, 1988. Since there was delay in preferring the said Appeal, the petitioner preferred an application for condonation of delay being Civil Misc. Application No. 134 of 1988. By the order dated 9th August, 1990, the Additional District Judge, Nashik, rejected the said application and hence this writ petition.

(2.) IN the impugned order dated 9th August, 1990, the learned Judge has observed that the decree was passed on 28th September, 1987 but the learned Judge proceeded under Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the decree was passed because the petitioner failed to file written statement and, therefore, it cannot be believed that the petitioner had no knowledge of passing of the decree on 28th September, 1987. The learned Judge further observed that it cannot be believed that the petitioner came to know about passing of the decree on 9th February, 1988.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides. Mr. Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that during the relevant period, Mr. A.M. Lohate, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, was ill and therefore, he could not attend to the petitioner's matter. It is in these circumstances the delay was caused in filing the appeal. He drew my attention to the affidavit filed by Mr. Lohate in the District Court, Nashik, which is annexed to the petition and contended that in view of the explanation given by Mr. Lohate the delay deserves to be condoned and may be condoned.