1 CAF : 466/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2009 Shri Bhaskar Shivram Patil .... Applicant Ankleshwar, Dist. Bharuch, (Gujarat) Vs. Mr. Ayub Ismail Patel & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. V.S. Talkute, Advocate for applicant. None for respondents. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 8th March, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 44 days in filing the first appeal. The impugned judgment and decree is dated 11th September 2008. It’s certified copy was ready and received by the applicant on 23rd October 2008. The last date for filing of the appeal was 10th December 2008. The applicant is a resident of Baroda in Gujarat State. The application for compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act had been filed by him in the court at Ratnagiri. The reason given by the applicant in his application for condonation of delay is as follows : “The applicant took time to collect the papers from the Advocate at Ratnagiri and also took time to collect the funds 2 CAF : 466/2009 for Court fees and send the same to Advocate at Mumbai. In the meantime, the time to file appeal was expired and the present application was required to be taken out. The applicant also took time to come to Mumbai for affirmation of the Civil Application. In the meantime, there was Christmas vacation to the court and therefore the applicant could not file the appeal”. 2. The application does not state any particulars of the date of collection of papers from the Advocate at Ratnagiri and the date of forwarding them to the Advocate at Mumbai Merely because the applicant is staying at Baroda, it is not necessary that there must be delay in filing of the appeal. Thus the application does not make out a case to establish that the applicant was prevented by any reason from filing the appeal within prescribed period of time. 3. In order to ensure that no injustice is caused to the applicant, on account of his own negligence with the assistance of Mr. Talkute, I have gone through the impugned judgment and order to find out whether there is substance in the challenge to the impugned judgment and order. Perusal of the impugned judgment and orders shows that none of the contentions raised by the applicant in his application for compensation have been proved by him. He was unable to establish that the vehicle in question was owned by respondent no.1 and that he was the employee of respondent no.1. He had produced salary certificates before the court but did not lead evidence to prove the documents of salary certificates. As regards the injury to himself, he 3 CAF : 466/2009 produced xerox copy of the injury certificate without explaining non production of the original document. He also produced xerox copies of the medical papers of KEM Hospital, where he claimed to have taken treatment, but there was no explanation for not getting the original medical papers produced before the Court. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. ( Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)