1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No.468/2010 ( Kamalnarayan s/o Ekambarao Nampalliwar ..V/s.. Rajendra s/o Ekambarrao Nampalliwar ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : SMT. V.A NAIK, J. DATE : 6th DECEMBER, 2010. Heard Shri Malode for the appellant and Shri Masood Sahrif for the respondent. The appellant challenges the order passed by the District Judge, Nagpur on 26th of November 2009 rejecting an application filed by the appellant/applicant for condonation of delay of 632 days in filing the first appeal. It is stated by the applicant in the application for condonation of delay that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation as the file containing the relevant documents was misplaced. It is stated in the application that the said file was found on 24/7/2009 in the office of the learned counsel for the appellant and immediately 2 thereafter the application was filed on 27/7/2009. It is further stated in the civil application that the appellant applied for the grant of certified copy of the judgment dated 18/9/2007 on 5/10/2007 and the same was received on 3/11/2007. The appellant sought for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The respondent objected to the prayer made in the civil application on various grounds. It was stated by the respondent that the applicant had not approached the Court with clean hands and the delay caused in filing the appeal was intentional. It was denied that the file containing the relevant documents was misplaced and was found on 24/7/2009. It was also denied that the delay caused in filing the appeal was bona fide. It was stated in the specific pleas that the appellant had not approached the Court with clean hands and had tried to make out a false case of a missing file. It was stated in the reply that in the final decree proceedings, a Commissioner was appointed with the consent of the parties and after the Commissioner submitted a report, an objection was raised by the appellant to the 3 report. The respondent stated in the reply that the trial Court had fixed the matter for final orders in the final decree proceedings and in such circumstances, the appeal came to be belatedly filed when the appellant was not satisfied with the Commissioner s report. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the application and the reply, the Appellate Court by the order dated 26/11/2009 rejected the application filed by the appellant. The First Appellate Court rightly observed that the appellant had appeared in the final decree proceedings and had participated in the said proceedings, when the Commissioner was appointed and the report was submitted by the Court Commissioner. The first Appellate Court rightly observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the appellant had participated in the final decree proceedings, it was clear that the delay in filing of appeal was not bona fide and the appeal was intentionally filed after a long time on the expiry of the period of limitation. The First Appellate Court observed that the appellant had also not filed an affidavit of a 4 responsible person or of the counsel in regard to the missing of the file and tracing of the same on 24/7/2009. There is nothing wrong with the approach of the first Appellate Court in dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and rejecting it on the ground that the delay caused in filing of the same was not satisfactorily explained. The order passed by the first Appellate Court is just and reasonable and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge Tambaskar.