pdp FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1882 OF 2000 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 1276 OF 1998 ------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s Memoranda of Coram, orders appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders ------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.R. Rajguru for applicant-UOI. Ms. Rubia Taneja and Shama Taneja for respondents. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. 17/02/2009. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant-Uion of India. Though this application is registered in the year 2000, it appears to have been filed in the year 1999 praying for condonation of delay caused in filing the First Appeal under Stamp No. 1276 of 1998. As per the office note, the appeal has been filed beyond time by 2 years and 156 days. 2. It is noticed that Suit No. 4179 of 1962 came to be decided and decreed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai on 15/10/1996, thereby declaring that the notification dated 27/1/1962 was illegal, inoperative, null and void, bad in law and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The appeal period of three months expired on 15/1/1997 and the learned counsel for the applicant candidly admitted that an application for certified true copy of the said Judgment was made for the first time on 25/2/1997. In this application for condonation of delay no further details have been provided and the only reason given is that the delay is required to be condoned because there is sufficient merit to succeed in the appeal and that public revenue and stakes to a very substantial extent are involved. The explanation so furnished is unsatisfactory and cannot be a reason to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. 3. Admittedly, a similar declaration made in Civil Suit No. 3894 of 1963 was also a subject matter of challenge in First Appeal under Stamp No.1280 of 1998 and the said appeal came to be dismissed by this court after delay was condoned on 15/12/2000. 4. The application, therefore, stands rejected. Consequently, registration of appeal is refused. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)