1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5868 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 30.04.2010 Heard Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate h/f Mr. V.R. Patil, Advocate for the appellant. The second appeal is filed against the rejection of Misc. Application No.129/2008 by the District Judge-2 Jalgaon. It was the application for condonation of delay of 10 years 9 months 20 days in filing appeal against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon rejecting the plaint on 03-10-1997 which proceeding was registered as Rejected Plaint No.18/1997. 2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. The present appellant filed Special Civil Suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon 2 on 18-07-1996. He affixed Court fee of Rs.1115/- and sought time to pay remaining deficit court fee. Said application for time to file deficit court fee was given on the same day i.e. 18-07-1996. Court allowed the application and gave time limit for the appellant to pay deficit court fees. However, deficit court fee was not paid and ultimately on 03-10-1997 the order of rejection of plaint was passed. It is mentioned therein that inspite of public notice dated 16-06-1997 published in notice board of the Court and Bar Association, Jalgaon, the plaintiff or his Advocate had not appeared nor paid deficit Court fee and therefore, the plaint was rejected. 3. Said decision was sought to be challenged by way of appeal and since the appeal was delayed, it was filed with Misc. Civil Application No. 129/2008 for condonation of delay of 10 years 9 months 20 days. Same application came to be rejected by order dated 03-12-2009 and hence this Second Appeal. 4. Heard Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate 3 for the appellant. It is stated in the application for condonation of delay that the Court has granted time on 18-07-1996 for paying deficit court fee. It is not mentioned how much time was granted, but it is further stated that the client was under impression that in the meantime Advocate would pay court fee and inform him or court would give him notice and therefore, he kept quiet. In the meantime, Advocate Mr. Akole, for his personal reasons stopped advocacy but he did not give notice to the appellant. The plaint was rejected on 03-10-1997. It is further stated that initially for 3 to 4 years the appellant was busy in arranging and performing marriages of his daughters and after he was relieved from said busy schedule, he went to his advocate but advocate did not meet him initially but later on advocate met. Advocate did not tell him anything inspite of repeated requests. Ultimately, he gave notice to Advocate Mr. Akole on 16-06-2008 but it was returned as house of the advocate was closed and ultimately, client himself took search and found rejection of the plaint. Considering these reasons, District 4 Court has rightly rejected the application. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate has placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court, in Radha Krishna Rai vs. Allahabad Bank (2000-SCC-9-733) and N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998- AIR(SC)-0-3222, 1998-AIR (SCW)0-3139. These citations are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Here client was fully aware that he had to pay deficit court fee within time. 5. In the fact situation, no substantial question arise in this appeal and hence, is dismissed. 6. In view of the final dismissal of the second appeal, Civil Application No. 5868 of 2010 does not survive and hence, is disposed of as such. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/APR10/sa281.10