1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3504 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.135 OF 1996 Ramesh P Ranka & Anr. : Applicants versus M/s.Rainbow Investments & ors. : Respondents. Shri.S.U.Dhakephalkar for the Applicants. Shri.A.L.Patki for Respondent No.1. Shri.P.M.Jadhav for Respondent No.3. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : September 19, 2008 P.C. 1. By the above Civil Application, the Applicants pray for restoration of the above First Appeal which has been dismissed for non-prosecution on account of the order dated 12/2/2001. By the said order, the advocate for the Applicants was directed to remove the office objections within two weeks from the date of the said order. On default being committed, the above First Appeal came to be 2 dismissed on account of the said order dated 12/2/2001. 2. It appears that though the above Appeal has been dismissed on account of the said order dated 12/2/2001, the above Civil Application for restoration and for condonation of delay has been filed on 28/7/2006. The reasons for the delay in filing the Civil Application are mentioned in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Civil Application. Beyond stating that there was communication gap between the earlier advocate and his clerk and that since the appeal was admitted, the Appellant was under a bonafide belief that it would come up for hearing after 5 to 6 years and, therefore, did not enquire about the progress of the above First Appeal, there are no other reasons mentioned in the Civil Application. It is further stated in the said Paragraphs that the Applicants could not meet their advocate on record and only after enquiring with the advocate's clerk that they came to know that the above Appeal had been dismissed on account of the non-removal of office objections. 3. The reasons mentioned in Paragraphs 3 and 4 in the 3 context of the huge delay of about six years are not worthy of acceptance. The reasons mentioned in Paragraphs 3 and 4 are too general and appear to be perfunctory in nature. 4. Though it is well settled that in the matters of condonation of delay a highly pedantic and technical approach should not be adopted. But the facts in the instant case are such which, in my view, disentitle the Applicants for being shown any indulgence by this Court. The Applicants are faced with a money decree for a sum of Rs.5,24,935/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The said decree was passed on the basis of an Arbitration Award passed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. In the proceedings of such a nature it is expected that the Applicants are diligent in prosecuting their remedy. It appears from the reasons mentioned in Paragraphs 3 and 4 that the Applicants have blissfully slept over their right and are now seeking to blame their earlier advocate. The fact that the Applicants did not make any inquiry with their advocate on record shows their negligence and indolence. As is well settled, the prejudice that would be caused to the other side is also a relevant factor whilst 4 condoning the delay and restoring the proceedings. 5. In the instant case though the Arbitration Award and the decree passed pursuant thereto by the District Court is in favour of the Respondent No.1, he has not been able to enjoy the fruits of the said decree since the year 1995. Though normally this Court would have condoned the delay by imposing costs, but considering the facts of the present case and considering the huge delay of about six years, in my view, exercise of discretion is not warranted. The Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. [R.M.SAVANT, J]