1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. C.A.168/2008 in MCA (Restoration) St. No.20168/2007 in W.P.No.904/1997 (Ku. N. K. Paturkar .vs. Zilla Parishad Nagpur and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. I.L. Bodade, Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE, & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ DATED : MARCH 26, 2008 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Writ Petition No. 904/1997 was preferred by the applicant challenging the legality and validity of the notice of superannuation. On 4.9.2003 the writ petition was dismissed for default. 3. According to the applicant, she was constantly in touch with the lawyer who used to tell that the matter is not yet decided. She learnt about the order of dismissal only on 4.9.2007 when she received the letter dated 21.8.2007 about the finalisation of her pension case treating her age of superannuation as 58 years. It is thus 2 obvious that according to the applicant it is her lawyer who kept her in dark and , therefore, there has been inordinate delay of 4 years. It seems that the applicant has not made any complaint against her lawyer about his negligence to the proper authority and she simply wants that the negligence of her lawyer should be treated as sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay. We are not inclined to accept this. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai