1 C.A. No. 7290.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7290 OF 2010 (Manik Natthu Saidane V Vinayak Suklal Patil & another) in FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 12521 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED : 1st April, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the Award passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability jointly and severally on present applicant and Insurance Company. 2. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the 2 C.A. No. 7290.10 applicant strenuously contended that the applicant initially had approached to take advise of his Advocate engaged in claim application before the Tribunal, and he told him that the papers are forwarded to the Advocate practicing in High Court and he was also instructed to file a separate appeal. He further submits that applicant is old and rustic person. The applicant was operated on his knee also. The learned counsel further submits that penalty could not have been saddled on the present applicant and the Tribunal has passed absolutely an erroneous order in that regard. The learned counsel submits that the expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed, and as such the delay in filing the First Appeal be condoned. 3. Shri Patil and Shri Gatne, learned counsel for the non-applicants oppose the application on the ground that no sufficient cause has been spelt out and the delay is inordinate one. 3 C.A. No. 7290.10 4. No doubt the expression “sufficient cause” has to be liberally construed, but it cannot be construed so liberally so as to Jettison the provisions of the Limitation Act itself. The applicant had appeared in the proceedings filed by the Insurance Company through a lawyer on 6th June, 2003. He was aware that the companion appeal has been filed and at that time his advocate advised him to file separate appeal. Even for four years thereafter, the appeal was not filed. 5. The delay in filing the appeal is more than seven years which is an inordinate one and no proper explanation is given for the same. The contention of the applicant that on merits the applicant has good case cannot be considered at this stage, because there are no sufficient grounds stated for condonation of delay. 6. In that light of the matter, Civil 4 C.A. No. 7290.10 Application for condonation of delay is rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) SDM*