IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 835 OF 2007 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 2802 OF 2007 SHRI. GITESH GURUDAS MADKAR ... Applicant Versus SMT. SHEETAL RAJENDRA BHAJE AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. D. P. Bhise, Advocate for the Applicant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 21st February, 2008 P.C.: Heard Shri Bhise on behalf of the applicant. None of the respondents are present, though duly served. 2. The applicant was respondent no.1 in Claim Petition No. 95/2004, decided on 18/04/2006 by the learned MACT, Mapusa. The applicant might have been born on 21/11/1986 but there is no dispute that he was a major when the said claim petition was filed against him and others, on or about 21/12/2004. There is no dispute that the applicant was initially represented by advocate who subsequently withdrew his appearance. One does not know why the applicant did not chose another advocate for himself. In the application under consideration, it is stated that the applicant came to know about the said award of the learned MACT, after receipt of notice in execution application no. 6/2007. However, the applicant has chosen not to mention the date as to when he received the said notice. According to the applicant, he had applied for certified copy of the award dated 18/04/2006 and lost the same but no dates have been mentioned by the applicant as to when he applied for certified copy of the same or as to when he received it or when he lost it. It appears that the applicant again applied for certified copy on 15/10/2007, which was received by him on 17/10/2007. The approach of the applicant is most casual. The explanation of delay of 456 days is not at all satisfactory. Hence, the application is rejected. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH