1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.5485 Of 2009 In Second Appeal Stamp No.7252 Of 2009 Ramprasad Kishanlal Toshniwal ... Applicant. Versus Satyawart Shivram Jindam. ... Respondent. -------- Smt. Jagtap, holding for Shri. V.D. Patnoorkar, Advocate for applicant. -------- CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATE: 11th JANUARY 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2) This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 2268 days occurred in presenting appeal. The applicant, original plaintiff, instituted a suit claiming perpetual injunction against respondent / 2 original defendant. The plaintiff claims to be the tenant inducted by the defendant in business premises situate at Nanded. The plaintiff apprehended his dispossession at the hands of the defendant without following due process prescribed under law as such he approached the Civil Court claiming a decree of injunction to that effect. The suit presented by the plaintiff came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 17-8-2000 whereas, the appeal presented by the applicant / original plaintiff raising challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, being Regular Civil Appeal No.125 of 2000 also came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 14-10-2002. The applicant / original plaintiff has approached this Court after about 7 years of the passing of the order by the First Appellate Court raising challenge to the appellate decree. 3 3) It is contended by the applicant in the application that he was suffering from heart disease and some problem relating to thyroid. He was operated upon at Mumbai in the month of August 2007. The applicant as such contends that the delay that has occurred in presenting the appeal is unintentional. 4) There is no explanation given by the applicant as to what were the circumstances which prevented him from presenting the appeal for the period between 2002 and 2007. The contentions raised in para 3 of the application are too vague. Even assuming the statements made in the application to be correct that the applicant has undergone bypass surgery in the year 2007 whereas the instant appeal is presented on 31-3-2009. There is absolutely no explanation as what were the circumstances which prevented the 4 applicant from approaching this Court between the period from 2007 to 2009. In these premises it cannot be concluded that the applicant has explained the inordinate delay properly. There are no circumstances enumerated to reach a conclusion that the applicant was diligent in prosecuting the appeal. There are no good grounds made out to draw an inference that the delay that has occurred in approaching this Court is unintentional and/or on account of circumstances beyond his control. There is no merit in the application and the same deserves to be rejected. 5) The application is thus rejected. Consequently the appeal also fails. (R.M. BORDE, J.) rsl/ ca.5485.09