IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4585 OF 2007 IN APPEAL (L) NO.898 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2348 OF 2006 Prakash Pandurang Sawant ..... Appellant V/s. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. ..... Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4586 OF 2007 IN APPEAL (L) NO.902 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2600 OF 2006 Mahesh Mahadev Dalvi ..... Appellant V/s. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. ..... Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4587 OF 2007 IN APPEAL (L) NO.901 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2391 OF 2006 Dilip Yashwant Jadhav ..... Appellant V/s. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. ..... Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4589 OF 2007 IN APPEAL (L) NO.897 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2485 OF 2006 Pratapsingh Devisingh Rawat ..... Appellant V/s. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. ..... Respondents M.N.Bhatkal, Sr.Advocate a/w R.J.Ghag – in support, for the Appellant. Mr.S.C.Naidu a/w Saurabh Kulkarni i/b C.R.Naidi & Co., for Respondent No.1. Mr..Y.S.Bhate, for Respondent No.3 Union of India. CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & P.B.MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 19, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Since all these notice of motions relate to the appeals which have been lodged in relation to common order passed by the learned Single Judge in various Writ Petitions involving the similar issues and as all the notice of motions involve common question of facts and law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. In all these notice of motions, delay of 233 days in filing the appeals is sought to be condoned, solely on the ground that the appellants were facing serious financial hardships and that therefore, they could not file the appeals in time. It is also sought to be contended that very important question of law is involved in the matter and the appellants have very good case on merits in as much as that since they have completed 240 days in employment, they are entitled for necessary protection in terms of the provisions of law applicable to them. 4. Merely financial difficulty itself can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay, in view of the facility made available to the litigants under Legal Aid Services. It is not the contention of the appellants that they had made any efforts to approach the concerned authorities to get necessary financial assistance from such authority to enable them to file the appeal either in time or any time during the period of 233 days. The affidavit in support of notice of motions, apart from stating that they had approached Senior Counsel and thereafter, raised funds, no particulars are disclosed as to the period during which such funds were raised by the appellants. In short, the affidavit in support of notice of motions, nowhere discloses any case for delay of 233 days in filing the appeals and in the absence of sufficient cause, the question of condonation of delay does not arise. Perusal of the impugned order also discloses detail analysis of the contentions sought to be raised before the learned Single Judge and on appreciation of the rival contentions, proper findings having been arrived at on each of the issues which were canvassed before the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances, in the absence of sufficient cause being shown, we find no case made out for condonation of delay. Hence, notice of motions are hereby dismissed. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.)