1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.221/2009 IN MCA. (ST) NO. 823/2009 IN C.A.NO. 4652005 (State of Maharashtra and others vs. Devidas Pohimal Goplani and others) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. K S Dhote, AGP for applicants CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : June 15, 2010. 1. Heard. By this application the applicants prays for condonation of 886 days’ delay in filing the application for restoration of the First Appeal (st) No. 27120/2004 arising from Land Acquisition Case No.90/2000. According to learned AGP, the appellant No.3 - Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council Gondia attended the office of the Govt. Pleader on 8.10.2008 in order to enquire about the matter. During enquiry, it transpired that the appeal stood dismissed pursuant to order dated 28.6.2006. The office of Govt. Pleader had informed the appellant no.3 -Spl.Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil Office, Gondia to file an application for restoration of the appeal with prayer for condonation of delay. Later, the O/o Govt. Pleader thought it fit that the acquiring body i.e. Municipal Council should file an appeal ; so also an application for restoration need not be filed; but again after 2 communication with appellant no.3 it was decided to draft the application by the office of Govt. Pleader but the Asst.Govt.Pleader to whom the matter was allotted, proceeded on leave. As such, Clerk from the office of Govt. Pleader made an endorsement and allotted it to some other AGP so as to draft the application, Thus, present application was drafted and filed with prayer for condonation of delay of 886 days’ in order to challenge the judgment and decree dated 1.3.2004, which by sheer passage of time has attained finality. 3. Although the non-applicants remained absent and no reply has been filed on their behalf, I do not find sufficient ground to condone the delay after the judgment and decree under challenge dated 1.3.2004 had reached its finality. It is well-established by now that delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course inasmuch as sufficient cause has to be made out and it is necessary to adduce plausible explanation for each day’s delay. The reason stated in the application are not convincing at all so as to challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated1.3.2004.. The delay being inordinate of 886 days in my opinion, the same can not be condoned particularly when by passage of time the judgment and decree has attained finality. Application is rejected. JUDGE sahare