* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6262 OF 2008 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.29827 OF 2008 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6263 OF 2008 (FOR STAY) IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.29827 OF 2008 Jawahar Jyoti Co-op Hsg.Soc Ltd. .....Applicant V/s M/s.P.G.Trust & Ors. ......Respondents ------ Mr.Girish M.Joshi, adv.for applicant. Mr.K.K.Malpathak, adv.for respondents. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 6TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. This Civil Application is taken out for condonation of delay of 11 years and 180 days in filing the First Appeal. Notice of the Application is served upon the respondents, who oppose the application. 3. The respondents had filed Special Civil Suit No.417 of * 2 * 1990 against the applicant for the relief of specific performance. The suit was contested by the applicant. By the judgment and order dated 27th March, 1997 the suit was decreed and the applicant was directed to execute deed of conveyance in respect of the suit property within a period of two months from the date of the order. The decree is being challenged by the applicant by filing appeal dated 15th December, 2008. 4. The cause for delay is sought to be explained at paras-2, 4 and 5 of the application. It is seen that the applicant blames it's lawyer, it's former Chairman and the respondent for the delay. As regards the lawyer, it is alleged that he never informed the applicant about the progress in the matter pending before the trial court. He had on his own filed purshis stating that he had no instructions from his client in the matter. The application does not specify the date of filing of purshis. On a query from the court, Mr.Joshi, the learned counsel for the applicant, states that the purshis was filed on 10th September, 1996. This complaint actually indicates total negligence on the part of the applicant in attending to the matter. The negligence was to such an extent that the lawyer had to file “No instruction” purshis. Mr.Joshi relying upon a decision of this court in the case of Dattusing Girdharsing Rajput (Thakur) V/s.Bhagwant Devasthan & Ors. reported in 2005(2)Bom.C.R.page * 3 * 290 submits that no-instructions purshis does not give a discharge to the advocate and he will have to be treated as continuing to represent the applicant. One fails to understand as to how does the citation help the applicant, because even if the lawyer is said to be continuing with the matter, he could have done little without the representative of the applicant attending to the matter. 5. The next complaint of the applicant is against one Mr.George who at the relevant time was the Chairman of the applicant-society. It is alleged that he did not leave the papers concerning the suit in the office of the society. Consequently, the subsequent Managing Committee was unaware of the proceedings. This complaint indicates nothing but utter lack of interest on the part of the applicant in the court proceedings. It is not the case of the applicant that any action has been taken by it against it's former Chairman. 6. The next complaint is made against the respondents stating that the respondent-trust deliberately and intentionally did not communicate the judgment and decree to the applicant. Instead they filed execution proceedings in the year 2007. The complaint needs to be only stated to be rejected as there is no duty cast upon the respondents to communicate the result of the suit to the applicant. Also no fault can be found with the * 4 * respondents in taking out execution proceedings in respect of the impugned judgment and order. 7. Mr.Malpathak, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there has been negligence on the part of the applicant even after it learnt about the impugned decree. The present advocate appearing for the applicant Mr.G.M.Joshi was its Chairman when notice of Special Darkhast No.85 of 2007 was served on 11th November, 2007. Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the execution proceedings through advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi on 20th November, 2007. It has been appearing in the execution proceedings for the last more than 16 months without taking any steps to challenge the impugned judgment and decree. Thus, there is no explanation for the delay between 11th November, 2007 to 15th December, 2008. 8. Mr.Joshi, submits that the applicant has a good case on merits. It being a society and not an individual, the court should condone the delay and give an opportunity to the society to have the hearing on merits. Mr.Malpathak, on the other hand relies upon a decision of our High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. V/s.Vithu Kalya Govari and Ors.reported in 2008(6)Mh.L.J.page 239 and submits that the court should exercise its discretion in condoning or declining to condone delay judiciously and ensure that no serious prejudice is caused. * 5 * When either the appeal becomes barred by time because of negligence or default of one of the parties, valuable right accrues to the other side, which normally cannot be taken away in a routine manner and that too by liberalized exercise of discretionary power. 9. In this case, it is obvious from the application that no ground whatsoever has been made out by the applicant. Besides as pointed out by Mr.Malpathak that after the respondent filed an execution application on 28th September, 2007, an appearance on behalf of the applicant was filed before the executing court on 11th November, 2007. Even thereafter, the applicants have waited for more than one year to file the appeal with an application for condonation of delay only on 8th December, 2008. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that there is no reason whatsoever made by the applicant for condonation of the delay. Hence, Civil Application No.6262 of 2008 is hereby dismissed. 10. With the dismissal of the above Civil Application filed for condonation of delay, the First Appeal does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. Similarly, Civil Application No.6263 of 2008 filed for stay of execution proceedings, does not survive. The same is also accordingly disposed off. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]