: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.658 OF CIVIL APPLICATION NO.658 OF CIVIL APPLICATION NO.658 OF 2007 IN IN IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. OF 2007 --------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office : : : Memoranda of Coram, : appearances, Court’s : Court’s or Judge’s Orders orders or directions : & Registrar’s orders : --------------------------------------------------------- Applicant present in person. Shri R.R.Arolkar, adv. for Respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 15th February, 2008. DATE : 15th February, 2008. DATE : 15th February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the applicant, who is present in person and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2/society. The respondent no.1, who is the builder and who is allegedly constructing a garage against the sanctioned plan, has not appeared. After going through the application for condonation of delay, I find that the applicant has not given any reasons for delay of 98 days except stating that he is suffering : 2 : from diabetes. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 contends that the applicant used to attend the trial Court regularly but he has not made any application and has also not filed any documents to show that he was bedridden and would not be in a position to appear. Though he has produced report showing that his blood sugar was slightly raised, that could not be ground for delay of 98 days. Assuming that there was valid reason for the delay, in my opinion, no injustice will be done to the present applicant because in respect of same garage about which he had filed notice of motion, society/respondent no.2 has also filed a suit and taken out notice of motion wherein the trial Court has granted stay to further development of that garage. In my opinion, no purpose will be served by condoning the delay. However, interest of the parties may be served by directing the trial Court to dispose off the suit as early as possible. : 3 : 2. In the result, civil application stands rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to hear the L.C.Suit No.198 of 2005 filed by the present applicant and Suit No.942 of 2006 filed by the respondent/society against the builder and others together and to dispose off as early as possible. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)