V.S.KOTWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Smt. Suhasini Mutalik and Shri Sadanand Pandit the learned counsel for both the sides.
(2.) THERE is absolutely no reason whatsoever to justify interference with impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India more so when proper reasons are assigned by the learned Additional District Judge. Those reasons are fully supported by the material on record. Even on reassessment there is no scope for interference. The application for condonation of delay of more than 11 years in filing the appeal in the District Court challenging the eviction decree passed in the year 1973 in a suit filed in 1969 has been rightly rejected as no sufficient cause was shown. The theory that the respondent decree-holder had promised not to execute the decree has also been rightly negatived. The further contention of adjustment in the context of another decree has also no substance.
(3.) THIS apart the conduct of the petitioner is almost reprehensible as he exhibited no compunction to make any statement on any forum without any intention to honour the said premises or assurance. A short survey of certain events would make the situation quite clear and which situation forfeits any right or claim in law as also in equity of the petitioner.;