1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8780 OF 2007 IN F.A. ST. NO. 16551 OF 2007 Gopaldas Vrajlal Shah & Ors. vs. Chief Officer, MC, Digras & Anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 12, 2008. Heard Shri Dhote, Advocate for the applicants/ appellants. The prayer is to condone delay of 322 days in filing First Appeal. There are total six unrelated independent appellants. The reason put forth is that after receipt of certified copy, they sought advise from their local counsel and as they were businessmen and have to manage their respective establishments, they could not arrange to come to Nagpur immediately. It is also mentioned that after that they contributed for expenditure and instructed applicant No.1 to swear affidavit and file the appeal. Shri Dhote, Advocate argues that thus there was no malafides in the matter and delay has been explained. Shri Khajanchi, Advocate for the respondents points out that after the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.7.2006, against the 2 notice of demand, the present applicants filed appeal under Section 169 of the Maharashtra Nagar Parishads, Municipal Council and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, before JMFC at Digras and in it they have made a statement that the Civil Court has passed the impugned judgment. He contends that the applicants have not pointed out any compelling circumstance and they have chosen to approach this Court as per their own convenience. The absence of knowledge of impugned judgment and decree is not the reason put forth. The only reason is pointed out is their engagement in private business. The engagement in own business cannot be the reason to condone delay and there are six independent appellants and ultimately one of them was authorised to file the appeal. Being businessmen, the applicants could have taken appropriate steps to file appeal within limitation. As contended by Advocate for the respondents, it appears that the applicants have chosen to approach the Court as per their own convenience and when they found it proper. No just and sufficient reasons are given for condonation of delay. Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE *GS.