:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3135 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.781 OF 2008 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 781 OF 2008 Jyotsna P. Mehta and ors. ..Applicants. Vs. Sudhirkumar Bhaidas. ..Respondent. Mr.P.M.Shah, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. M. Janardhanan i/by Pramila S. Bhaingade for the Respondent. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 16th June,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is an application for condonation of four years delay in filing the first appeal. It is contended by the applicants that the exparte decree was passed by the Trial Court on 11.3.2004. The appellants contended that they were not aware whether suit was proceeded without Written Statement. It is further contended that the Advocate did not inform about the status of the matter and they came to know about the passing of the exparte decree when they received the show cause notice in the execution proceeding under Order-9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. which was decided by the court on 14.2.2008. It is further contended that against the said order, Appeal from Order is presently pending. In so far as the present matter, however, I find that the contention that :2: the applicants have diligently following the matter, is incorrect. The roznama of the suit is annexed to the reply. That indicates that on 12.2.2002 both the parties were present with their counsel and the matter was adjourned for filing written statement. Thereafter, the matter has been on board on 11.3.2002, 14,3,2002, 27.3.2002. 10.6.2002. On all these dates the appellants and their advocate remained absent. On 10.6.2002 the order was passed that suit to proceed without written statement and the matter was adjourned to 16.8.2002. The appellants remained absent and thereafter matter was adjourned to 12.12.2002. 12.2.2003, 17.4.2003, 16.7.2003, 8.9.2003, 14.10.2003. On 11.11.2003 the Advocate for the defendant was present and asked for time. Again the appellants and their Advocate were absent on 11.12.2003 and ultimately the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 11.3.2004. This indicates that the applicants and their advocate have not attended the matter though ample opportunities were given to them. In my view, the delay between 11.3.2004 and 13.12.2004 is not at all explained. Even otherwise, it was open for the applicants to file the first appeal even though they have filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. In my view, there is no case made out for condonation of delay. Hence, civil application is rejected. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.) :3: FIRST APPEAL NO.781 OF 2008 1. As the Civil Application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, the first appeal is also dismissed. However, ad interim relief already granted to continue for the period of two weeks from today. 2. The Advocate for the appellants makes a statement that he will move the A.O. with prior notice to the respondent and if the matter is circulated, he will serve the copy of the A.O. and the other papers to the other side well in advance. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)