1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 632 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 2 OF 1996 Smt. Dhondabai Vitthal Naikwadi. ...Applicant vs 1. Shri Shivram Vitthal Naikwadi & ors. ...Respondents Mr. Sana Y. Bangwala i/b S.M. Gorwadkar for the applicant. Mr. Vikas Shivdkar for the respondent Nos.1B & 6. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16 TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. : 1. None for the appellant. There is enormous delay in filing of the application. Dismissed. 2. The dismissed order is recalled at the request of the learned advocate who appeared later on. 3. The application is for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal. Second Appeal No.2 of 1996 was on Board of 2 admission on 15th February, 2002. It appears that the appeal was dismissed in default. The explanation given in the application is that the concerned advocate was not intimated and, therefore, he was unable to attend the matter. The further explanation is that the advocate of the appellant was under the impression that the appeal was pending for hearing. It is stated by the learned advocate for the appellant/applicant that the Second Appeal was being attended by another advocate at the relevant time. There is no affidavit filed of the concerned advocate or his clerk in support of such kind of explanation. The explanation is not acceptable even on face value because for more than five years, in ordinary course of regular work, the advocate is not likely to carry a bona-fide impression that the appeal would be still pending. It is of common knowledge that the admission process of appeals is at an early stage and five years period is too long to assume that it was yet to be admitted. I find no reasonableness in the explanation and as such, the Civil Application is dismissed. (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.)