1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. C.A.Z. No.707/2010 in L.P.A.No. 367/2010 in WRIT PETITION NO. 1717/2005 (Central Board of Provident Fund and ors. .vs. National Textiles Corporation Ltd. And ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.B. Puranik, Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for Respondents 3 to 7. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 24, 2010 Heard. This is an application for condonation of delay of 183 days in filing the letters patent appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.12.2009. Apparently the period of limitation of 30 days was allowed to expire without preferring any appeal even though no certified copy was necessary for filing the appeal. Even thereafter it is not as if the appellants preferred this appeal along with an application for 2 condonation of delay. The appellants preferred to file an application for review after a period of 5 months’ from the judgment. The review application was rejected by the learned Single Judge on 7.7.2010 after which this appeal is filed. From the averments in the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the cause for delay has been made out to be the application for certified copy and time it took to receive the copy, even though as pointed out above, the certified copy was not necessary. There is a bald statement in the affidavit that legal opinion was sought from the Head Office and thereafter this appeal was filed. It may be noted that this reason is given in the context of an intra Court appeal. In the circumstances, we find that there is no reason given by the appellants why the period of limitation was allowed to expire without any justification. The cause as set out by the appellants appeared to have arisen after the period of limitation is said to have expired. This cannot be treated as sufficient cause particularly in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 19 in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil .vs. Jalgaon Medium Project – (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 448 reiterating the position of law taken earlier, which reads as follows: “19. In Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat 2 this Court observed: (SCC p. 497, para 6) “6. ..... it is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that 3 because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause.” Mr. Bhangde, learned senior counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2 submitted that even otherwise the appeal in which this application for condonation of delay is preferred has become time barred. It is not necessary to enter into this controversy at this stage. In the circumstances of the case, we find that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai