1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No. 1210/2009 in First Appeal St. No. 20140/2006 The State of Maharashtra ..vs.. Madhukar Dnyanobaji Rahate Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Yengal, A.G.P. for State. Mr. Mohta, Advocate h/f Mr. Parchure, Advocate for respondent. Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : March 4, 2010 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1015 days caused in filing the appeal. In para 2 of the application, it has been stated that the impugned judgment and order was passed on 06.12.2003. The applicant, learnt about the same when the warrant of ejectment was received on 25.10.2004. Office of the District Government Pleader was informed about the same on 26.12.2004. The certified copy was applied on 28.10.2004. It was delivered on 05.11.2004. Certified copy was received on 05.11.2004. The application for condonation of delay was filed on 08.04.2006. 2. Although, the judgment and order impugned in this case was passed on 06.01.2003 and appellants were party to the said proceeding, there is no statement that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not inform 2 the appellant about the decision of the Court. The delay caused from 06.12.2002 to 25.10.2004 has not at all been explained in the application. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. ..vs.. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & anr; 2008 (6) All M R 954, State of Maharashtra & anr. ..vs.. Dattu Mahadeo Markad and anr; 2009 (4) Mh. L. J. 373 and decision in Civil Application No. 345/2009 decided on 11.11.2009 in support of his contention that the application for condonation of delay lacks all particulars and hence is liable to be dismissed as it does not make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4. After going through the averments made in the application and ratio laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, I am satisfied that no case is made out for condonation of delay hence the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. J UDGE kahale