.abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5271 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 235 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar Orders: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ms.Prabha Bhadadare i/b Mr.P.R. Arjunwadkar for the applicant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 11TH DECEMBER 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This application is made for setting aside the order of dismissal of an appeal by reason of non-compliance of self-operative order dated 2nd February 2007. 3. By an order dated 2nd February 2007 while admitting the appeal, this Court passed an order dispensing with the printing but also directed the appellant to file paperbook with decree form within one year. The order further stated that - 2 - if the order was not complied, the appeal would stand dismissed for want of prosecution without further reference to Court. The applicant was therefore required to file paperbook and decree from on or before 2nd February 2008. It was not filed. The appeal therefore stood dismissed for non-compliance of the self-operative order. 4. This application has been filed on 14th September 2008 for setting aside the said order and extending the time for filing of the paperbook by 4 weeks. In para 4 of the application, it is stated that the advocate for the applicant was not aware of the order and, therefore, could not take steps immediately. It is further stated that in the course of checking the matter, the advocate came to know on 30th July 2008 that the matter was disposed of for non-compliance and, therefore, the restoration application is filed. Firstly, the statement that the advocate was not aware of the order cannot be believed. The order dated 2nd February 2007 was passed in the open court after hearing the advocate for the appellant. - 3 - The advocate for the appellant, therefore, was aware of the order. Even if it is assumed that the advocate was not aware and became aware of the order on 30th July 2008, as alleged, still the application is not made in time. The application was typed on 1st August 2008 as the typed date on the application shows the date of typing. That date has been scored off by hand and by handwriting it has been changed to 25/9/08. The record also shows that this application has been filed on 25th September 2008. The application for setting aside the order, even assuming that it could be filed within 30 days after the knowledge, ought to have been filed on or before 30th August 2008. It is barred by limitation. The delay has not been explained in the application at all. 5. In the circumstances, the civil application is dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)