1 of 4 101-WP.8166.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 101 WRIT PETITION NO. 8166 OF 2023 RAMAKANT DATTATRYA MULE VERSUS UMAKANT DATTATRYA MULE DECEASED THROUGH LRS USHA UMAKANT MULE AND OTHERS ... Mr. Sahebrao M. Pandit, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. V. Sundale and Ms. Varsha Sundale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1 (c) and 3. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 4th MARCH 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present petition, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2022 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned District Judge-4, Osmanabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.67 of 2020, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay came to be rejected. 3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had filed an appeal challenging the order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in R.C.S. No.295 of 2014. However, there was a delay of three years, two months and fifteen days in filing the said appeal. 2026:BHC-AUG:9635 2 of 4 101-WP.8166.2023 4. It is further submitted that the learned Advocate, who was representing the Petitioner before the Trial Court, had not informed the Petitioner about the proceedings of the suit. As the written statement was not filed, the suit proceeded ex-parte and ultimately came to be decreed. The Petitioner was working as a labourer at Pune for the last ten years, and therefore he had no knowledge about the decree passed by the Trial Court. It is therefore submitted that the delay occurred due to the said circumstances, but the learned District Judge rejected the application on the ground that the reasons for delay were not properly explained. 5. Per contra, Mr. R. V. Sundale, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1(A) to 1(C) and 3, supported the impugned order and submitted that the Petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay of three years, two months and fifteen days. He submits that the Petitioner was required to explain the day-to-day delay, and since the delay was not properly explained, the learned District Judge has rightly rejected the application. 6. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the application as well as the order passed by the learned District Judge. Upon perusal, it reveals that the suit proceeded ex-parte against the Petitioner and consequently the decree came to be passed. 3 of 4 101-WP.8166.2023 In the application for condonation of delay, the Petitioner has stated that he was working as a labourer in Pune for the last ten years and the proceedings of the suit were not communicated to him by his Advocate. 7. In view of the same, it appears that despite engaging an Advocate, the written statement was not filed and therefore the Petitioner remained unaware of the proceedings. Consequently, even after passing of the decree, the Petitioner had no knowledge about the same. 8. The Petitioner has further stated that on 19.06.2020, the Respondents abused the Petitioner and a complaint was lodged, pursuant to which N.C.R. No.450 of 2020 came to be registered on 20.06.2020 at Police Station, Osmanabad. It was at that time that the Petitioner came to know about the decree passed against him. 9. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the Petitioner has sufficiently explained the delay. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.08.2022 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned District Judge- 4, Osmanabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.67 of 2020 is quashed and set aside. 4 of 4 101-WP.8166.2023 11. The application filed by petitioner is allowed and the delay of three years, two months and fifteen days is condoned. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef