-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 247 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 822 OF 2007 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 421 OF 2003 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 836 OF 1999 Smt. Vimla R. Gupta and others ... Appellants. Versus Enna Shyamlal Teckchandani and another ... Respondents Mr. H. Toor, instructed by Mr. S.H. Mishra, for the appellants. Mr. T.N. Tripathi, instructed by M/s. T.N. Tripathi & Company, for the respondents. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & P.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATE: JUNE 09, 2008. P.C. Heard. 2. By the present Notice of Motion, the appellants are seeking condonation of delay of 210 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Summary Suit No. 836 of 1999. The defendant was arrested about one month after the disposal of the suit in a criminal case and and was detained for some time and that the Advocate who was engaged for -2- filing the appeal did not take appropriate steps within time. No other facts necessary to justify such a long delay of 210 days have been furnished in the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion. The affidavit does not disclose as to when the matter was entrusted to the Advocate and how long it remained with the Advocate without he taking any steps for filing the appeal. The affidavit also does not disclose as to what prevented the appellants from taking appropriate steps within first thirty days after the disposal of the suit by the learned single Judge. Indeed, as rightly submitted on behalf of the respondent, the affidavit does not disclose necessary details regarding the cause for delay in filing the appeal. Besides, perusal of the records shows that there was no valid defence disclosed by the appellants in the affidavit filed before the learned single Judge seeking leave to defend the suit. Records apparently disclose that the appellant had not taken any consistent stand in relation to the transaction in question as well as the documents in support of such transaction. There is a clear admission about borrowing of money and execution of documents in support of such borrowing. The correspondence with the Bank discloses complete knowledge of the contents of the documents so executed by the appellants. There is a wild allegation in the affidavit filed before the learned single Judge that the respondents had taken signatures on blank papers. Undisputedly, there is also an allegation by the advocate for the appellants that the entire transaction itself was a sham transaction. In other words, in the absence of -3- any case to defend in answer to the plaintiff's claim, the learned single Judge had decreed the suit. Being so, apart from the fact that there is no sufficient cause disclosed for condonation of long delay of 210 days, even on merits, there does not appear to be a case worth considering in the appeal against the decree passed by the learned single Judge and, therefore, we do not find any case for condoning the delay of 210 days in filing the appeal. Notice of Motion is, therefore, dismissed. 3. Needless to say that all the observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of Notice of Motion dealing with the condonation of delay and for no other purpose. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.