:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5026 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 22709 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5027 OF 2008 1.M/s. Vaibhav Laxmi Enterprises and anr. ..Applicants Vs. M/s. Good Hope Plastics Industries ..Respondent Mr. R.S. Yadav for applicants. Mr. M.G. Patil i/by Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR,JJ. Date : April 22, 2009. Date : April 22, 2009. Date : April 22, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Yadav the learned counsel for the applicants. 2. First Appeal under Stamp No. 22709 of 2008 has been filed belatedly and, therefore, this application for condonation of delay. As per the office note, the appeal is filed beyond time by 552 :2: days. 3. Mr. Patil the learned counsel appears for the respondent - original plaintiff, who has filed affidavit-in-reply and opposed the application on the ground that no cause whatsoever has been made out for condoning the delay and the only reason given putting the blames squarely on the Advocate represented the defendants is a fabricated ground, as per the respondent. 4. The applicant no.1 is a partnership firm and it is represented by the applicant no.2. The applicants faced Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 1998 before the City Civil Court at Dadara for recovery of money and the defendants were represented by an Advocate who had filed his V.P. on 118/9/1999 as per the order-sheet, a certified copy of which has been placed before us. The applicants state that the learned Advocate appointed by them did not seek instructions, filed no instructions pursis and allowed the suit to be decided ex parte as per the decree dated 22/12/2006. They further claimed that for the :3: first time they came to know about the said decree on 25/8/2008 and immediately thereafter i.e. on 26/8/2008 made an application for a certified true copy of the judgment and order rendered by the trial court and hence the delay. 5. By our order dated 6/3/2009 we had directed Shri K.M. Brahmbhatt, the learned Advocate, who appeared for the applicants before the trial court to file his affidavit and accordingly he has done so. In his affidavit, he has set out the details of the letters he had written to the defendants from 23/1/2002 till 20/8/2007 and there were some letters which were sent through courier service. Shri Brahmbatt also stated that after the trial court rendered its judgment on 22/12/2006, he addressed a letter to the defendants on 25/12/2006 to take appropriate steps in their best interest. This letter was sent through the Pack Up Courier, Vapi and the letter was returned on the ground that the addressee was not available on account of change of address. 6. It is evident that the applicant no.2 has :4: never contacted Shri Brahmbatt during the period of seven years i.e. from the day he filed his V.P. till the suit was decided. 7. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his prayer for condonation of delay:- (a) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and anr. vs. Mst. Katiji and ors. [AIR 1987 SC 1353]. (b) Malkiat Singh and anr. vs. Joginder Singh and ors. [AIR 1998 SC 258]. (c) Sushila Narahari and ors. vs. Nandakumar and anr. [(1996) 5 SCC 529]. (d) Mahant Rajendra Das Vaishanav vs. Gopal Das and ors. [Civil Appeal No. 555-5556 of 2008 decided on 4/9/2008]. :5: 8. As noted earlier, the delay caused in the instant case is of 552 days and the only explanation given is that the Advocate did not inform the applicants about the progress as well as the suit having been decreed. We are not convinced by these reasons, more so when the Advocate concerned has, in compliance of our order, filed his affidavit and clearly pointed out that at no point of time the applicant no.2 or any of his representative has contacted the said Advocate during about seven years’ period. We have perused the roznama of the trial court and almost on every date the Advocate for the defendants was present before the trial court and he filed applications seeking adjournment. This obviously indicates that the defendants did not contact him to give instructions so as to file Written Statement, examine witnesses as well as to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff. Even if there was change of address, it was necessary for the plaintiff to inform the Advocate regarding the same. We are, therefore, satisfied, that good and sufficient reasons have not been made out to condone the inordinate delay caused in filing First Appeal under Stamp No. 22709 :6: of 2008. 9. Hence, the application is hereby rejected. Consequently, registration of first appeal is refused. 10. Civil Application No. 5027 of 2008 does not survive and shall stand disposed as such. (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)