1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5964 of 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.28058 of 2008 Pavan Podar & ors. .. Applicants versus Venibhai P. Visaria .. Respondent ... Mr.M.A. Khan for the applicant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 18th December 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the applicant. 2. This application is made by the applicant for condonation of delay of 914 days in filing of the appeal. The delay is gross and in my view, it is not satisfactorily explained. 3. The applicants are the trustees of a trust and they had appointed Mr.Joshi to look after the proceedings in the trial court. In the application 2 they have pleaded that Joshi became ill and ultimately died on 17th March 2008 and this has resulted into delay. Firstly, trustees cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility of managing the trust. They cannot take shelter under the fact that they had delegated the powers to an employee. Secondly, no details of alleged illness about Joshi are pleaded. No dates have been mentioned. It is vaguely alleged that Mr.Joshi got ill sometime in the month of April and ultimately got a paralytic stroke. Application does not state whether Joshi had not been attending the duties from April 2006 onwards. Even the date on which Joshi suffered paralytic stroke is not mentioned. It is not mentioned who was looking after work of Joshi in his absence. 4. The suit was decided on 19th April 2006. As stated earlier, the delay from April 2006 to 2nd December 2008, when the appeal was filed is gross and has not been explained. Applicants have deliberately omitted to mention whether Mr.Joshi was on leave and if so from what date to what date. In my view, therefore sufficient cause for the delay is not made out. 5. Application is accordingly dismissed. 3 (D.G. KARNIK, J)