1 rma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 908 OF 2009 IN APPEAL (L) NO. 155 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1828 OF 1999 IN SUIT NO. 1379 OF 1999 Dileep Balkrishna Nevatia .. Appellant Vs Snehlata Nevatia and Ors .. Respondents Mr. Prem S. Gidwani for the Appellant Mr. Gaurav Joshi a/w Mr. Vipul Bilve i/b M/s. Mulla & Mulla for respondent no. 1 Jyoti Chordia, respondent no. 2 – in person. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 1st February, 2010 P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Gidwani, the learned counsel for the Applicant who has filed Appeal under lodging No. 155 of 2009. The said Appeal is filed beyond time by nine years, 5 months and 21 days. 2. Suit No. 1379 of 1999 came to be filed by the Applicant’s father against his mother and Notice of Motion No. 1828 of 1999 filed in 5.nma908-09 2 the said suit was dismissed as per order dated 6th and 09.08.1999. The said order is sought to be challenged in Appeal Lodging No. 155 of 2009. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is in no way concerned in the pending dispute between his father and mother but some observations have been made in the order dated 6th and 09.08.1999 personally against him and therefore, he has challenged the said order at this point of time for the limited purpose of getting those observations expunged. Our attention has been invited in this regard to the observations made in para 6 of the said order dated 6th and 09th August, 1999. 4. The original Plaintiff had filed Appeal No. 1269 of 1999 against the order dated 6th and 9th August, 1999and the same was dismissed on 23.12.1999. The Plaintiff died on 31.08.2005. On record, there is sufficient material to show that the Applicant and his late father were staying as members of the joint family for a considerable long period till his demise. As per Applicant’s own statement, he got a copy of the impugned order on 15.06.2005 and Appeal (Lodging) No. 95 of 2007 was filed by him on or around 06.02.2007 along with Notice of Motion No. 1784 of 2007 for condonation of delay. 5.nma908-09 3 The Appellate Court passed the order dated 06.08.2007 observing that the suit was abated. It appears that on 20.10.2008, Chamber Summons No. 1536 of 2007 came to be allowed in the suit and consequently, the Applicant has come on record as the Plaintiff on or about 12.11.2008. This justification set out in support for condonation of delay does not make a case for sufficient cause to condone the delay of nine years, five months and twenty one days. However, even otherwise, the observations made in para 6 are prima facie observations and in any case, now the Applicant is a Plaintiff, he may contest the suit on merits and set the record right. 5. The Notice of Motion is dismissed. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.] 5.nma908-09 4 5.nma908-09