1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.A. No. 22/2010 IN A.O. St.No. 1072/2010 (A.P.M.C., Arvi, Distt. Yavatmal VERSUS Yavatmal District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.P. Kalmegh, counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhay Sambre, counsel for the respondent no.1. Shri V.R. Choudhary, counsel for the respondent no.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MAY 7, 2010 . By this civil application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 3 years and 197 days in filing the appeal against order. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant had challenged the order passed by the trial Court on 01.04.2006 in a civil revision application on 18.04.2006. The matter was listed for admission before this Court and the revision was dismissed by the High Court on 13.09.2007. It is the case of the applicant that after receiving the copy of the order dated 13.09.2007 in civil revision application, the applicant has filed the present appeal with an application for condonation of delay. It is stated by the applicant in the application that the delay caused in filing the application is bona fide and unintentional as the applicant was prosecuting the matter before the wrong forum under a bona fide belief 2 that the forum has jurisdiction to decide the said matter. The learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer made in the civil application and submitted that the present appeal has been filed by the applicant along with the application for condonation of delay on 15.01.2010. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that no reason whatsoever is stated in the application for the delay caused in filing the appeal against order after the dismissal of the civil revision application on 13.09.2007 and that he delay is not explained, much less, sufficiently explained. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, sought for the dismissal of the application. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the application and the reply, it is clear that the applicants have not made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 3 years and 197 days in filing the appeal. It is necessary to note that the order was passed by the trial Court on 01.04.2006 and the applicant had filed the civil revision application on 18.04.2006. The civil revision application was dismissed on 13.09.2007 as the same was not maintainable. The applicant thereafter filed the present application for condonation of delay along with the appeal against order after the dismissal of the civil revision 3 application, on 15.01.2010. Even if the time consumed in prosecuting the matter in civil revision application is excluded, there is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal against order as the civil revision application was dismissed on 13.09.2007 and the appeal against order along with this civil application was filed on 15.01.2010. There is no reason whatsoever stated in the application for the delay caused after 13.09.2007 till 15.01.2010, much less, a sufficient cause or reason for belatedly filing the appeal against order, before this Court. Since not a single reason is stated in the application for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal against order after the civil revision application was dismissed on 13.09.2007, the huge delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Except for stating that the delay is bona fide, nothing is stated in the civil application for explaining the delay caused in filing the appeal against order. In such circumstances, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the application is dismissed. JUDGE APTE