[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLN. NO.312 OF 2008 IN L.P.A.ST.NO.24389 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.5605 OF 2008 The Bandra Holy Family Hospital ..Applicant Vs. Vidya Vithal Lad ..Respondent .... N.P.Dalvi i/b C.R.Naidu & Co. for Applicant Ketan Joshi i/b Neeta Karnik for Respondent .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : MARCH 6, 2009 DATE : MARCH 6, 2009 DATE : MARCH 6, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The learned counsel for the Respondent has been able to point out that the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, are not justified and that the applicant has placed blame on the clerk of the Advocate whose affidavit is not filed in support of the application. Further, there are misleading statements which ex-facie make out that the explanation offered by the applicant, [-2-] cannot be said to be good and sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. 3. In our view, the reasons given in the application, are not convincing but considering that there is delay of 27 days only, we are inclined to condone the same subject to costs which we quantify at Rs.1000/-. Costs to be paid within two weeks. Failure on the part of the applicant to pay costs, would result in dismissal of the application. 4. Application is disposed of. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]