1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATIONS NO. 2, 3, 4 & 5 of 2008 IN Stamp No. (Main)2974, 2977, 2980 & 2983 of 2007 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATIONS NO. 2 OF 2008 Sunil Gokuldas Mehta .... Applicant V/s Francis John (dec.) by LR's & Ors. .... Respondents MISC. CIVIL APPLICATIONS NO. 3 OF 2008 Sunil Gokuldas Mehta .... Applicant V/s Mrs. Irma Philomena Joao & Ors. .... Respondents MISC. CIVIL APPLICATIONS NO. 4 OF 2008 Sunil Gokuldas Mehta .... Applicant V/s Mrs. Maria Argentina Jacques & Ors. .... Respondents MISC. CIVIL APPLICATIONS NO. 5 OF 2008 Sunil Gokuldas Mehta .... Applicant V/s Zoya Vinita Joao & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. I. Agha, Advocate for the Applicant. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 17 th APRIL 2008 P.C. : Heard Shri Agha, the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant, on applications for condonation of delay, for filing the appeals. 2. The applicant was defendant no.3 in four Civil Suits bearing S.C.S. No. 183/1999 decreed on 26/02/2004, SC.S. No. 139/1999 decreed on 10/12/2003, S.C.S. No.141/1999 decreed on 2/04/2004 and S.C.S. No. 185/1999, decreed on 13/08/2003. 2 3. As submitted by the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant, defendant no.3 was duly served in all the said Civil Suits and had filed written statements in the last three suits. The delay sought to be condoned is of 1246, 1324, 1270 and 1382 days, respectively. 4. There were three defendants in the said Civil Suits. Defendant no.1 was stated to be the Karta of Mahesh G. Mehta, an Hindu Undivided Family. Defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1 and defendant no. 3 is the brother of defendant no.1. Admittedly, defendants no. 1 and 2 did not contest the decrees passed against them by filing appeals and it is only after the execution proceedings were filed, that defendant no.3 has filed the present applications for condonation of delay for number of days, stated herein above. 5. The case of the applicant/defendant no.3 is that he did not follow up the suits because his elder brother the said Shri Mahesh G. Mehta, defendant no.1, had at all times assured him that he would not been dragged into the litigation as defendant no.3 was neither a member of Hindu Undivided Family nor party to the transaction of the execution of the promissory notes and, as such, defendant no.3 had stopped following up the suits and had left the matter to his elder brother, defendant no.3, who was persuading the case in Court as well as with his lawyer. 3 6. The applicant/defendant no.3 has stated that he was shocked when he was served with four notices of Special Execution Applications on or about 1/06/2004 and after getting knowledge of the said decrees, the defendant no.3 approached defendant no. 1 and asked him to appeal against the decrees and the defendant no.1 assured him that the same would be challenged by him. It is also stated that at the relevant time, the applicant was not in a position to file any appeals due to financial constraints. It is also stated that the applicant fell sick on 7/10/2007 and was advised rest up to 16/10/2007. 7. The averments in the applications are not at all supported by Shri Mahesh G. Mehta, defendant no.1 in the said Civil Suits. Except for self serving averments in the applications, the applicant/defendant no.3 has not at all satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the appeals. The applicant/defendant no.3 was duly served in the said Civil Suits and had even contested the same and not that thereafter he was served with notices of the execution on or about 1/06/2004 and yet chose not to file any appeals thereafter for almost three years. The conduct of the applicant/defendant no.3 is not only one of inaction but total negligence and in such a situation such inordinate delay cannot be condoned. It is well settled that though the expression 'sufficient cause' is to be interpreted liberally, it does not mean that the Court should readily accept whatever the applicant alleges to explain his default. The cause shown by the applicant/defendant no.3 does not 4 appear to be at all convincing. It is also well settled that (see P.K. Ramchandran V/s. State of Kerala [1997 (7) SCC 556]), law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Applications therefore are hereby rejected in limine. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-