1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1943 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (st)NO.10645 OF 2009 Shri Venkatesh Balaji Sansthan .... Applicants Trust, Nasik & Ors. Vs. Shri Krishna Janardan Mahanubhav.... Respondent Mr.Sagar Kasar, Advocate for applicants. Mr.Abhay Ostwal, Advocate for respondent. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 9th December, 2009 P.C. 1. This Civil Application is taken out for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal to challenge the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree dated 7th November 2008 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik in Special Civil Suit No.251 of 2005. The applicants are the trust by name Venkatesh Balaji Sansthan Trust and its trustees. All the trustees are seen to be educated persons holding high positions in the society. They are businessmen, Advocates, Doctors and builders. At paragraphs no.2 and 3 of the application, it is averred that the applicants, being professional personalities, could not meet immediately after the impugned judgment for diverse reasons. There were also an administrative exigencies on the part of applicant no.1- trust. These averments are contended to be sufficient reasons for condonation of delay of 68 days. 2. The application is opposed by the respondent. 2 3. Mr.Kasar, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Court may exercise discretion in favour of the applicants by awarding costs in order to compensate the respondent. Mr.Ostwal, the learned counsel for respondent strongly urges that there is no case whatsoever made out by the applicants for condonation of delay and therefore the respondent should not be deprived of the right that is afforded to him to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In this connection, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramlal and others vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, reported in AIR 1962 SUPREME COURT 361. 4. It is patent from the contents of the Civil Application that the applicants have taken the entire matter in a most casual and caveliar manner. The entire application is absolutely vague. The only particular found therein is the date of the impugned decree. It is silent as regards the nature of “diverse reasons” for which the trustees could not meet immediately after the impugned judgment. The application is also silent as regards “administrative exigencies” of the trust. In these circumstances, it must be held that the applicants have failed to make out any case for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Civil Application is dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)