1 63-wp-9458-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9458 OF 2024 1. Ujwala W/o Surendra Hapse Age: 40 years, Occu-Agri., R/o. Bhramhni, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar 2. Vishnu S/o. Rajaram Jare Age: 75 years, Occu. Agri., 3. Rangubai W/o Vishnu Jare Age: 70 years, Occu. Agri., 4. Gangubai W/o. Gokuldas Wagh Age: 60 years, Occu. Agri., No.2 to 4 R/o. Zhapwadi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Mangal W/o. Suresh Mohade Age: 57 years, Occu. Agri., R/o. Imampur, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6. Jijabai W/o. Babasaheb Nalkar Age: 55 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Kangar, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 7. Jalinder S/o. Vishnu jare Age: 37 years, Occu. Agri., 8. Subhash S/o. Misrilal Chordiya Age: 50 years, Occu. Agri., (Added as respondent no.3, amendment carried out as per Hon’ble Court Order dated 24.09.2024.) No.7 &8 R/o. Zhapwadi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. …..PETITIONERS (Ori. Defendants) 2025:BHC-AUG:17649 2 63-wp-9458-2024 VERSUS 1. Ganesh S/o. Ramesh Jare Age: 31 years, Occu. Agri., 2. Ushabai W/o. Namdev Jare Age: 50 years, Occu. Agri., R/o. Lohgaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Subhash S/o. Misrilal Chordiya Age: 50 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Zhapwadi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. …..RESPONDENTS (Ori. Defendants) ______________________________________________________ Mr. N. B. Narwade, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. D. R. Jaybhar, Advocate for Respondent nos.1 to 3 ______________________________________________________ CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : 07TH JULY, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :- . The petitioners assail order dated 05.02.2025 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.36 of 2023, by the learned District Judge-2, Newasa, allowing the application for condonation of delay filed by the respondents/original defendants in filing First Appeal against judgment and decree dated 24.03.2022 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Junior Division, Newasa in Regular Civil Suit No.389 of 2008. The suit was a suit for 3 63-wp-9458-2024 partition and separate possession. There is a delay of 460 days in filing of the appeal. The delay was explained stating that the respondents were not aware about the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and also on the ground that they were not indisposed. 2. Learned First Appellate Court accepted explanation offered by the respondents/appellants that they were not aware bout the passing of the impugned judgment and decree. The learned First Appellate Court has expressed that a broad- based liberal approach must be adopted while dealing with application for condonation of delay. 3. Having perused the reasons recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, I find no reason to interfere with discretion exercised by the learned First Appellate Court while condoning the delay. Perusal of the order condoning the delay does not indicate that the learned First Appellate Court has recorded any perverse finding or that the principles underlying Section 5 of the Limitation Act are incorrectly applied. It is also well settled that while dealing with an order condoning the delay by a particular Court, the Writ Court 4 63-wp-9458-2024 should be slow in showing interference. 4. Having regard to totality of circumstances coupled with fact that as per the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the decree is also executed, I am of the considered opinion that one chance to assail the decree on merits needs to be given to the appellants, who are respondents in the present petition. 5. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no orders as to cost. 6. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) Rushikesh/2025