1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.337 OF 2009 Dhanshi Jagshi & Co. ..Applicant. Vs. Dr.K.N.Acharya and anr. ..Respondents. Shri.A.G.Toraskar for the Applicant. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2009 PC : 1. This is a civil revision application impugning an order dated 30.6.2009 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court rejecting application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The present revision applicant was a tenant and the decree for possession came to be passed on 25.1.2007. The applicant applied for a certified copy of the decree on 29.1.2007 and the same was received by him 20.3.2007.The record indicates that thereafter the plaintiff moved the executing court 2 on 8.7.2008 and the execution proceedings were served upon the present applicant on 1.8.2008. One Mr. Bagwe Advocate was then engaged by the present applicant and Shri. Bagwe filed his Vakalatnama in the execution proceeding on 10.11.2008 and appeared before the executing court on 15.10.2009 and 10.11.2008 and even thereafter till 25.2.2009. The decree was ultimately executed and possession was taken on 19.3.2009. Appeal was however, presented on 9.3.2009 and the application for condonation of delay was presented on 12.3.2009.The ground in the application for condonation was that the present applicant was suffering from chest pain and an affidavit of the doctor dated 7.3.2009 was relied upon. It is seen that there is no other medical evidence produced for a period of one year and ten months. It is also seen that in the application for condonation of delay, the fact that an advocate was engaged in the execution proceeding is concealed. In my view the application is correctly rejected by the appellate court as being not bonafide., No 3 cause for interference in the revision . Hence, rejected. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)