IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4585 OF 2006. APPLICATION NO.4585 OF 2006. APPLICATION NO.4585 OF 2006. IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.24864 OF 2006. APPEAL (ST) NO.24864 OF 2006. APPEAL (ST) NO.24864 OF 2006. Janardan Shankar Malandkar & Ors. ..Applicants Versus. Prabhakar Shankar Malandkar (Deceased) 1a.Smt Sunanda Prabhakar Malandkar & Ors. ..Respondents Shri A.S.Khandeparkar for the Applicants. Shri G.H.Keluskar for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. 14th 14th 14th February, 2008. February, 2008. February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard advocates appearing for the parties. The prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 9 years 363 days in filing the appeal. The applicants want to prefer an appeal for challenging judgment and order dated 16th July, 1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri. The applicants preferred an appeal before the District Court for challenging the said judgment and order. In the said appeal on 07th September, 1999, the applicants filed an application seeking permission to withdraw the appeal on the ground that they realised that the appeal ought to have been preferred in this Court. The said application was disposed of on 08th October, 1999 by the District Court. According to the applicants, though the District Court accepted the contention that the appeal was not maintainable in the said Court, the appeal was dismissed. A Writ Petition under Article 227 of the : 2 : 2 : 2 : Constitution of India was filed by the applicants for challenging the order of the District Court. The said Writ Petition was rejected on 07th April, 2000. The appeal alongwith this Application is filed on 12th October, 2006. 2. When this application was heard on 15th January, 2008, this Court found that there was no explanation for delay from 07th April, 2000 (i.e day on which Writ Petition was disposed) till 12th October, 2006, the advocate for the applicants sought time to file additional affidavit. Accordingly, additional affidavit dated 30th January, 2008 has been filed by the first applicant. The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that what is stated in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 gives sufficient explanation for the delay. The said paragraph Nos.5 and 6 read thus: "5. I state that this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition No.924/2000 on 7.04.2000. I state that at that time the Appellant No.1 Janardan Shankar Malandkar was not understood the order of this Court properly and he was under impression that there was no remedy to challenge the order passed in above Writ Petition No.924/2000. Moreover the Appellant No.1, Janardan S. : 3 : 3 : 3 : Malandkar and Appellant No.2, Shashikant S. Malandkar was looking after the matter. Appellant No.3 is suffering from high blood pressure, diabetes and spondilesis therefore she was unable to take any action. Also appellant Nos.1 and 2 suffering from various ailments due to old age. Thus, due to this entire situation the appellant did not take any further step in present matter in subsequent years after order passed by this Hon’ble Court. 6. I state that the appellants came to know subsequently from some of their acquaintances that they can challenge the order passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division in Civil Misc Application No.293 of 1993 by way of First Appeal before this Hon’ble Court. Therefore they contacted their advocate in Mumbai and with the consultation and advice from their advocate they had decided to file First Appeal before this Hon’ble Court and accordingly appellants had preferred present appeal in October 2006". 3. It must be noted here that the appeal and application for condonation of delay has been filed on 12th October, 2006. Even assuming that what is stated : 4 : 4 : 4 : in the aforesaid paragraph is correct, the same cannot be accepted as an explanation for a very long delay from 07th April, 2000 to 12th October, 2006. 4. There is a gross unexplained delay in preferring the First Appeal. No case is made out for condonation of delay. Application is rejected. Judge. Judge. Judge.