1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.NO.134 OF 2009 in A.O.ST.NO.12145 OF 2009. Abdul Rauf s/o Mohd.Yusuf (Retiwala) ..vs.. Sheikh Chand s/o Mohammad Yusuf and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.V.M.Deshpande, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.S.V.Purohit, Adv. for respondent no.1. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED : 20th January, 2010. This Civil application is taken out for condonation of delay of 258 days in filing the appeal from order to challenge correctness of the order dated 2 nd of July, 2008 passed by District Court, Amravati in Reg.Civil Appeal No.89 of 2004 remanding the same to the trial court for limited purpose by giving specific directions therefor. The application is opposed by respondent no.1, who is the original plaintiff and hence the only contesting respondent. At paras no.2 and 3 of the application, it is claimed that the applicant is 78 years of age and 2 keeps an indifferent health. He also claims to have been bed ridden during the period 4 th of August, 2008 till the date of filing of application on 17 th July, 2009 which prevented the applicant from filing the appeal from order within the prescribed period of limitation. This claim, however, has been seriously contested by respondent no.1 in the reply filed by him wherein it has been stated that the applicant had, in fact, during the very period attended the trial court. This allegation is sought to be countered by the learned counsel for the applicant by saying that the applicant had never personally remained present during the period before the trial court. He refers to the applications filed by the applicant in the trial court to point out that the applications were notarized and not verified before the officer of the court. This, according to him, would falsify the statement of respondent no.1 that the applicant had attended the trial court during the period of sickness. Even if the claim of the applicant that he had not attended the trial court during that period is to be accepted, it is seen that the applicant has been attending to the matter pending in the trial court. If he was able to look after the matter in the trial court by not attending the court, one fails to understand as to why he could not similarly file the present appeal from order within the prescribed period of limitation. Thus, 3 in my opinion, the applicant has not made out sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Hence, the application is dismissed and A.O.St.No.12145 of 2009 is also dismissed. JUDGE. chute