1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.NO.1015 of 2007 AND M.C.A.ST.NO.17698 of 2006 in S.A.NO.82 of 1996. Sudhirkumar Gupta and others ..vs.. Govindas Bherubakas Karnani and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.D.C.Daga Adv. for the appellants. C ORAM : C.L.Pangarkar, J. DATED : 1st April, 2010. This is an application for condonation of delay and for restoration of the appeal, which came to be dismissed for default. The Second Appeal No.82 of 1996 was pending before this court. It came on board at Sr.No.37 in a week commencing from 5/12/2005. It came to be dismissed on 7/12/2005 since none appeared for the appellants. It is the contention of the appellants that they had taken away the brief from Advocate Shri D.C.Daga, who was then appearing for them, as they wanted to engage another counsel. He submits that the appellants have taken away the brief in Sept.2005(wrongly mentioned as 2006 in the 2 application). It is contended in the application that the appellants could not engage another counsel and in the meantime the appeal came to be dismissed. This application for restoration of the appeal has been filed on 31/10/2006 along with an application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants could not make necessary arrangement for engaging another counsel within time and therefore, nobody could appear in the court on the date the matter was fixed. After having heard the learned counsel and after having noted the contents of the application, I do not find that there is any cause for condoning the delay and for restoration of the appeal. The appellants were knowing very well that the appeal is old and yet they took away the brief from the lawyer and did not care to engage another lawyer for more than a year. It is nothing short of negligence and negligence can never be a ground for condoning any delay or for restoration of the appeal. Both the applications are, therefore, rejected. JUDGE. chute 3