1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4661 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.4661 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.4661 OF 2006 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.25193 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.25193 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.25193 OF 2006 Shri Bhimrao Ramchandra Kamble and another : Applicants. versus Surendra Rajaram Songaonkar and another : Respondents. Mr.D.B.Patil for the applicants. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED DATED DATED : JULY 09, 2008. : JULY 09, 2008. : JULY 09, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. By the above Civil Application, the Applicants pray for condonation of delay of 1819 days in filing the above First Appeal. 2 2. The Applicants are the original Defendants in Special Civil Suit No.266 of 2000 which was filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs for a declaration and permanent injunction in respect of a room. In the said suit, a notice of motion was filed, being Notice of Motion No.2276 of 2000, which was partly allowed on 30.11.2000. Against the said order dated 30.11.2000 allowing the said Notice of Motion partly, the Applicants herein filed an appeal, being Appeal from Order No.76 of 2001 on 15.1.2001, and also the Civil Revision Application No.1068 of 2001 challenging the jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court to try the said suit. It appears that, both the A.O. and the C.R.A. were admitted and were pending for final hearing, however, there was no stay operating in both the proceedings. It also appears that when C.R.A.No.1068 of 2001 came up for final hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court 14.9.2006, the learned Single Judge was informed that the said S.C. Suit No.266 of 2000 has already been decreed on 21.9.2001. It is the case of the Applicants that it is on the said day, the Applicants became aware of the decree passed in the said S.C.Suit No.266 of 2000. 3. The Applicants thereafter proposed to file 3 First Appeal against the said decree dated 21.9.2001 passed in S.C. Suit No.266 of 2000. However, since the said First Appeal was belated by 1819 days, the Applicants have filed the above Civil Application for condonation of delay. 4. The reasons cited by the Applicants for delay are mentioned in Paras 5, 6 and 7 of the above Civil Application. The sum and substance of the case of the Applicants is that they became aware of the decree passed only at the time of hearing of the said C.R.A. No.1068 of 2001 on 14.9.2001 and that thereafter they have immediately taken steps for filing the appeal. 5. It is contended on behalf of the Respondents that there was no stay operating in A.O. No.76 of 2001 and the C.R.A.No.1068 of 2001 which was filed challenging the grant of injunction and the jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court. Hence the Applicants ought to have been aware that the said suit would be proceeded with in the trial Court. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the Respondents that the reasons cited by the Applicants do not constitute sufficient cause for this Court to condone the huge delay of 1819 days. 4 6. Though it is well settled that in the matters of condonation of delay, a highly technical and pedantic approach should not be adopted. But the facts in the instant case, in my view, do not entitle the Applicants for being shown any indulgence by this Court. It is pertinent to note that the Applicants had filed two proceedings i.e. A.O. No.76 of 2001 and C.R.A.No.1068 of 2001 against the order dated 30.11.2000 passed in Notice of Motion No.2276 of 2000 granting relief to the Respondents/Plaintiffs. The Applicants, therefore, cannot be said to be ignorant litigants. Having not obtained any interim order in the said proceedings, the Applicants ought to have been aware that the suit would be proceeded with and, therefore, should have taken care and precaution to prosecute the said suit. There is absolutely no explanation in the application as to why nobody appeared for the Applicants in the said suit. That the Applicants became aware of the decree passed in the said suit only on 14.9.2006 is very difficult to digest in the light of the aforesaid facts. It is well settled that the delay should not be condoned for the asking as it would cause prejudice to the other side in whose favour certain rights are created in the intervening period. In the instant case, the delay is of 1819 days, for which, in my view, no sufficient 5 cause is shown by the Applicants. The Applicants appear to be indolent and negligent in prosecuting the proceedings. 7. In that view of the matter, no case for grant of any relief in the above Civil Application is made out by the Applicants. The above Civil Application is accordingly rejected. [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, J] J] J]