1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. LPA No.279/2007 in Writ Petition No.1971/2007 (H.G. Mate .vs. G.Y. Jachak) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. A.M. Pannase, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. D.L. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE, & R.V.MORE, JJ DATED : FEBRUARY 21, 2008 1. Heard. 2. On 28.3.2000 the trial Court partly allowed the civil suit filed by the respondent against the appellant and passed a decree for mandatory injunction against the appellant. The appellant preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree on 3.2.2001, obviously after the period of limitation was over. The appellant moved an application for condonation of the delay 2 on the ground that he was suffering from heart trouble and that is why he could not file the appeal within time. In support of his plea, the appellant also filed a medical certificate dated 21.1.2001 issued by one Dr. Padole of Nagpur. The appellate Court found that the ailment shown in the said certificate is totally unconnected with any heart problem. The appellate Court, therefore, dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge. By order dated 3.5.2007 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and maintained the order of the appellate Court. The said order of the learned Single Judge is challenged before us. 3. In addition to the medical certificate dated 21.1.2001, the appellant has produced another certificate dated 25.6.2007 issued by the same doctor which shows that the appellant was suffering from insentake bond juncture and from IHD(heart disease) during the period from 15.5.2000 to 21.1.2001. It is thus apparent that there is variance in between the medical certificate dated 21.1.2001 and 25.6.2007. Obviously the appellant has procured the latter certificate in order to fill in lacuna in 3 the original certificate. In view of this, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai