1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.4363 of 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing of the Second Appeal. The delay is of 1525 days. 2. The applicant alleges that though the impugned judgment was delivered on 25.8.2004, yet, he got knowledge of the same in December 2008. He was busy in his own business during November and December 2008 and, therefore, more delay was caused. He submits that he had no knowledge about law of limitation and there was communication gap between himself and his advocate. Consequently, he seeks condonation of the delay. The application is resisted by the Respondents by filing reply dated 21.8.2009. They denied the averments made in the application by filing affidavit of the Respondent No.1. 3. Heard learned counsel. 4. There can not be any dispute about the proposition that ordinarily liberal approach is required to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. However, the explanation given by the applicant must be sufficient to infer his bonafides. In the present case, the applicant is admittedly a businessman. He has not filed affidavit of his advocate to show that he was not informed about the delivery of impugned judgment within a reasonable time. It does not stand to reason that for about four (4) years he made no inquiry about the final decision in the appeal. The averments in the application are too vague. The literate person like the appellant could not have kept silence for such a long drawn period. It is also difficult to believe that he had no knowledge about the law of limitation. The delay appears to be only due to sheer negligence. The applicant was sitting over his right to prefer an appeal. Considering these aspects, the explanation is totally unconvincing and unacceptable. Hence, the application is dismissed and also the appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.06.11.2009. asp/office/Ca4363.09