-1- 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 FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUNATION SHEET CONTINUNATION SHEET CONTINUNATION SHEET CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1484 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.1484 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.1484 OF 2006 IN IN IN SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL ST.NO.22539 OF 2006 APPEAL ST.NO.22539 OF 2006 APPEAL ST.NO.22539 OF 2006 ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. Office Notes,Office Office Notes,Office Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, memorandum of Coram, memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court’s appearances,Court’s appearances,Court’s Court’s Court’s Court’s or or or orders or directions orders or directions orders or directions Judge’s Judge’s Judge’s orders orders orders & Registrar’s orders. & Registrar’s orders. & Registrar’s orders. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b M/s.Khandeparkar & Associates for the Applicant Mr.Sudhir Prabhu for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : NOVEMBER 23,2007. : NOVEMBER 23,2007. : NOVEMBER 23,2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. None appears for the Applicant. The Advocate for the Respondent is present. My attention has been invited to the order dated 30th October 2007. The said order records that when the application was argued on 16th October 2007, this court found that the explanation in this application for delay of more 3 years was not satisfactory. On two occasions, time was granted to the Applicant to file additional affidavit for explaining the delay. Till today, additional affidavit is not filed. Lastly, time was granted on 30th October 2007. -2- 2. Explanation for delay in this application is not satisfactory. Delay is of three years and 230 days. In fact, there is no explanation at all except for a bald assertion that papers were handed over to the Advocate at Bombay and the same were misplaced. In view of this position, application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE