1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1327 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.274 OF 1998 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: P.R.BORKAR, J. Date : April 30, 2010 1. Heard Advocate Shri S.D.Pokharkar for the applicants-appellants and Shri S.S.Chapalgaonar Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Shri A.A. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.4. 2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 2528 days in filing application for restoration of first appeal No.274 of 1998. 3. The facts mentioned in the application are that the applicants have filed above first appeal No.274 of 1998. It is stated that appeal was admitted. Appeal was against the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad as mentioned in C.A. No.1328 of 2010. The 2 registration of the said appeal was refused on 20.6.2003 on the ground that the court fee was not paid. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel Shri Pokharkar that earlier as per the notification of the government, the applicants were under bonafide impression that they were entitled to exemption from payment of court fee. However thereafter there was decision by this court (Coram: Vagyani, J.) and the office directed the Advocate to pay court fees. But, the court fee was not paid. The application for condonation of delay and original application for restoration of the appeal show that the first appeal, which was admitted on 22.6.1998, came to be disposed of on 20.6.2003. It is stated that the registration was refused for want of payment of court fee. But, parties have come so late that "C" and "D" files of First Appeal are destroyed. We have no means to verify record. Obviously, record of original claim petition must not be in existence. Generally, this court is liberal in condoning delay. But, condoning delay in undeserving cases is doing injustice to other side. 3 5. It is stated that the matter had remained to be attended due to oversight of the clerk of the Advocate and they were under impression that the objections were removed and it was noticed that the matter was rejected on 20.6.2003. 6. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that delay may be condoned. Provisions of Limitation Act are salutary provisions which are in the best interest of the litigants and the society. Moreover, there is limit to be liberal in condoning delay. It is also in the interest of the society that litigation ends at some point of time. In this case, delay is abnormally excessive i.e. 2528 days. 7. Not being satisfied with the reasons given, application deserves to be and is, accordingly dismissed. pnd/ca1327.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)