1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 277/2011 Shakuntalabai Balkrishna Kapse ..vs.. Madhukar Wasudeorao Waghmare and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. P. K. Sathianathan, Advocate for applicant. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The appellant is original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 232/2008 pending on the file of Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur. Respondent nos. 1 to 6 are original defendants. The appellant had applied for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was granted. This order was assailed by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 356/2008 before the District Judge, Nagpur. This appeal came to be decided on 24.08.2009. During the course of hearing of the appeal, respondents had produced death certificate of Mangya, father of the appellant and respondents. The appeal was dismissed, thereby the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court in favour of the 2 appellant was affirmed. However, the appellant was aggrieved because of the production of allegedly false certificate of death of Mangya for consideration of the appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 356/2008. Therefore, he moved an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for initiating enquiry in the matter of allegedly false certificate of death produced by the respondents. The learned Ad hoc District Judge, Nagpur rejected the application on 16.10.2010. Being aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been preferred. Since there has been delay of 96 days, this application for condonation of delay. 4. The grounds for condonation of delay are: The appellant is an old lady having a son. She could not arrange for funds to prefer an appeal in time. She was suffering from illness during relevant period. 5. A bare perusal of the averments in the application for condonation of delay do not show that there was any ground which caused delay in filing the appeal. The reason that she could not arrange for the funds despite the fact that she has a son and thereafter she could arrange the same shows that ground so put forth is artificial. The second ground of illness is also not sufficient to condone the delay. As per the medical certificate, the appellant was suffering from backache from 15.11.2010 to 25.03.2011. Assuming this to be true, by no stretch of imagination it can 3 be said that illness of backache prevented her from taking necessary steps for preferring an appeal. In that light of the matter, I do not find any substance in this application. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE kahale