.abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4911 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (S) NO. 21656 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar Orders: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.Sanjay Krishnan i/b Ms.Harshada Rane for the applicant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This application is filed by the appellant - insurance company for condonation of delay of 349 days in filing of the appeal. 3. Perusal of the application and in particular paragraph 11, which gives the reasons, shows that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The impugned judgment was passed on 30th June 2007. Certified copy was applied for on 12th October 2007 and was ready on 1st January - 2 - 2008. The appeal has been filed on 10th September 2008. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in sub-paragraphs (c) to (f) of paragraph 11 of the application, the applicant has stated the transmission of papers from one office to another between the period January 2008 and June 2008. He also submitted that during that period the file was misplaced for some time and tracing of the file also took some time and therefore the delay between January 2008 and June 2008 is satisfactorily explained. 5. As stated earlier, the impugned judgment was delivered on 30th June 2007. Period of 90 days for filing of an appeal expired on or about 29th September 2007. During this period of limitation, certified copy was not even applied for. Certified copy was applied for on 12th October 2007, that is after 12 days of the expiry of the expiration of limitation. This delay in not even applying for a certified copy during the period of limitation has not been explained at all. - 3 - There is not even a whisper in the application why the certified copy was not applied for till 12th October 2007 and why the applicant allowed the limitation to expire even without applying for the certified copy. The delay, which is sought to be explained in paragraph 11, is subsequent to the receipt of the certified copy without even mentioning anything about the reason for not applying the certified copy. 6. It is true that courts should adopt liberal approach and, in the absence of sufficient evidence contracting them, should accept the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. But, here is a case where no reasons at all mentioned for not applying the certified copy and allowing the limitation to run out. In the absence of any reason, there is no question of accepting it as "sufficient reason". 7. In the circumstances, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The application is therefore rejected. - 4 - (D.G. KARNIK, J.)