1 CA 413/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 413 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (S) NO. 7489 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Suranand Yanoo with Ms. Priya Baliga i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for the applicant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 6TH DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This application is made for condonation of delay of 271 days in filing of an appeal against the order passed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2 CA 413/10 3. The only reason given for condonation of delay is stated in para 3 of the application which reads thus: “Petitioners state that the advocate representing the Petitioners in the MACT was not attending this Hon’ble Court, therefore, Petitioner had to take permission from the Competent Authority for engaging the present advocate and for assigning the matter for preparing appeal papers and pursuing the matter. Petitioners state that the decision taking process took some time which was unintentional and due to administrative procedures.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the advocate who appeared in the trial court does not usually appear in the High Court and, therefore, the appellant had to 3 CA 413/10 engage another advocate for filing of an appeal. In my opinion, this is usual. Ordinarily, the lawyers who practice in the trial court rarely come to the High Court to argue their own appeals. The appellant – insurance company has separate panel of lawyers for the trial court and separate panel of lawyers for the High Court. The appellant could have and ought to have taken appropriate steps for filing of an appeal in time. The delay in the present case is gross and is of more than 9 months. Though the length of delay by itself is not a ground for rejecting the delay condonation application, the long delay coupled with the fact that the delay is not explained satisfactorily is a ground for not condoning the delay. Hence, the application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)