3-WP-2261-2003.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2261 OF 2003 Purshottam Suharan Yadav. …Petitioner Vs. Bansraj Ambika Prasad Yadav and Ors. …Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2010 Ms. A. R. S. Baxi for the petitioner. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed by original defendant no.3 to challenge the order passed by the appeal bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The appeal was preferred to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The trial court’s decree is dated 24th July 2000. The appeal was preferred sometime in April 2002 along with an application for condonation of delay. This application for condonation of delay was dismissed. 1/4 Swapnil 2026:BHC-AS:38161 3-WP-2261-2003.docx 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the summons was served in the suit, defendant no.3 had remained present in the court. However, he had not filed any written statement. She submits that defendant no.3 was never intimated about the ex parte decree. It was only after he received the notice in the execution proceedings, he learnt about the decree and therefore, filed the appeal. She, thus, submits that the impugned order would require interference, as defendant no.3 was unaware about the ex parte decree and immediate steps were taken after knowledge of the decree. 4. I have perused the papers of the writ petition. In paragraph 7 of the trial court’s judgment, it is recorded that defendant no.3 was personally served. However he has never appeared or filed any written statement. Hence, the suit was proceeded ex parte against defendant no.3. From the judgment it is clear that though served, defendant no.3 had never appeared in the trial court and the suit has proceeded ex parte. It appears that defendant no.3 had made not attempts to defend the suit. Since defendant no.3 was absent though served, the ground that ex parte decree 2/4 3-WP-2261-2003.docx was never intimated to him cannot be accepted as a valid justification and condonable explanation to allow his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 5. The appeal bench has considered the supporting affidavit filed on behalf of defendant no.3. It is recorded that the application for certified copies was filed after two years and the appeal was lodged on 16th April 2002. It appears that the application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree was also dismissed. Considering no valid reason for not appearing in the suit though served and never challenging the order directing the suit to proceed ex parte, the appeal bench has rightly refused to exercise the discretionary powers for condonation of delay. 6. In the absence of any valid reason, the application for condonation of delay cannot be entertained only on the ground that he was not intimated about the ex parte decree. 7. I see no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. 3/4 3-WP-2261-2003.docx 9. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending civil application is disposed of as infructuous. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 4/4