IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4143 OF 2007 IN APPEAL (L) NO.842 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1334 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.924 OF 2001 WITH COURT RECEIVER' S REPORT NO.44 OF 2006 Anil K. Bodani & Ors. ..... Appellants V/s. Manju Meadows Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.V.R.Dhond a/w Rishit Bandian i/b M/s.Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for the Appellants. Mr.Ali Abbas Delhiwab i/b Kanga & Co., for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Ajay Fernandes i/b Desai & Desai & Carrimjee, for the Respondent No.10. Mr.S.S.Swadi i/b Shiralkar & Co., for the Respondent No.21. CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & P.B.MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 19, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 218 days in filing the appeal. The impugned order was passed on 21-12-2006 and the certified 2 copy of the order was obtained on 22-02-2007. In normal course, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 24-03-2007. But the same was filed on 31-10-2007. 3. The only ground which is sought to be contended is that pursuant to the impugned order, the valuation report by the Court Receiver and consequent fixation of royalty, disclosed that the liability of the appellant would be 3,85,000/- p.m. retrospectively from April 2004. Initially, the royalty was fixed at Rs.20,000/- p.m. Considering the same, the appellant was not interested in pursuing the matter any further and therefore, had not challenged the impugned order. However, pursuant to the valuation report and the fixation of royalty at higher amount, it was found necessary for the appellant to challenge the impugned order and therefore, there was a delay. 4. The affidavit in support of notice of motion discloses that the valuation report was submitted in July 2007 and secondly royalty was also fixed in July 2007. Undisputedly, the certified copy of the impugned order was available with the appellant from 22-02-2007 onwards. In other words, even accepting for the sake of arguments the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant could be sufficient cause within the meaning of the said expression under the Limitation Act, 1953, it can be said that some 3 cause as such has been shown for delay till July 2007. However, the affidavit in support of motion is totally silent about the delay from August till 31-10-2007. There is not a single word disclosing any cause for delay from the mid of July till 31-10-2007. Undisputedly, the valuation report was dated 10-07-2007 and the notice of motion was taken out on 21-10-2007. Being so, the contention sought to be raised on the face of the record itself does not disclose sufficient cause for a long delay of 218 days in filing the appeal. It is well settled that in the absence of sufficient cause being shown for the delay, the question of condoning the same does not arise. We are well aware that there need not be sufficient cause for every day of delay. However, in the case in hand, there is a period of three months from 01-08-2007 till 31-10-2007, for which there is no explanation forthcoming from the appellant for not taking steps to file the appeal. On the face of the record itself, it is apparent that the appellant was fully aware of the fact that the royalty at Rs.3,85,000/- p.m. was fixed in July 2007 itself. 5. It is also not in dispute that regarding valuation report submitted by the Court receiver, there was a challenge by the appellant in respect thereof under chamber summons which was taken out before the learned Single Judge along with Chamber summons taken out by the respondent. 5. For the reasons stated above, in the absence of sufficient cause for 4 delay in filing the appeal, the notice of motion is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.)