1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1955 of 2009 In Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2009 Inderchand v. Prakash and anr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr M.K. Kulkarni, Adv for applicant Mr J.M. Gandhi, Adv for respdt no.1. Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 7th Oct 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 2 years, 3 months and 2 days caused in filing appeal against the judgment dated 27.11.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant was bonafide pursuing remedy of revision (Criminal Revision No. 61 od 2007), delay ought to be condoned. He submits that delay is not deliberate or intentional and the same may be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. Per contra, Mr Gandhi submits that revision was 2 allowed to be withdrawn on 13.6.2007 with liberty to prefer application seeking leave to appeal. However, for a period of two years, applicant did nothing and it is only on 11th May 2009 that that application seeking leave to appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 4. Question as regards sufficient cause is purely an individualistic test and there is no standard or objective test to be applied. Concept is delightfully undefined leaving a well- intentional discretion to decide individual cases as to whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. Each case spells out unique experience to be dealt with the Court as such. Looking at facts pleaded in application, Court has to consider whether sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. It is no doubt true that approach must be to advance the cause of justice and the delay has to be liberally condoned. In the present case, however, there is no scope to show sympathy to the applicant. There is absolutely no explanation as to why application was not filed after permission was granted by this Court to withdraw revision and liberty was granted to file appropriate appeal vide order dated 13.6.2007. Affidavit of the clerk filed in support of present application is also vague. It is stated by learned counsel for respondent that civil suit has also been dismissed by the Civil Court. Even though, appeal is pending against the dismissal of civil suit, as stated by learned counsel for applicant, it appears that merely to keep litigation alive in the subject-matter, applicant sought to file 3 accompanying appeal after dismissal of civil suit. 5. For the above reasons, application deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, application seeking leave to file appeal and appeal itself are dismissed. Judge. Hsj