FARAD CONTINUTION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Revision Appln no.6 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office Court or Judge’s Order Memorandum of Coram appearence,Court’s Orders & Directors and Registrar’s Order --------------------------------------------------- Mr C.G.Gavnekar for applicant CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. DATED 24.l.2006 DATED 24.l.2006 DATED 24.l.2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. . I see no infirmity in the approach adopted by the court below in rejecting the application for condonation of delay preferred by the applicant. The applicant was confronted with the communication sent by his advocate dated 24.3.2005 to falsify the stand taken by the applicant in the application to justify the delay that he had no knowledge about the outcome of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the said communication was not received by the applicant. Reliance is placed on para 4 of the reply filed by the opponents before the lower court. The learned counsel is, however, not in a position to point out clear stand taken by the applicant on affidavit that no notice/ intimation left behind by the postal authorities was received by the applicant. In other words, the applicant had received the notice/intimation left at the last known address of the applicant by the postal authorities.The applicant was obliged to pursue the matter further. Moreso, the communication having been sent by his own advocate, any prudent person would be expected to immediately contact his advocate to find out the purpose of such communication. Thus understood, I see no reason to depart from the conclusion reached by the court below. It necessarily follows the ground on which application for condonation of delay was pressed into service on behalf of the applicant was non existent and false. Hence revision is dismissed.