IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 131 OF 2010 IN STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 1356 OF 2010 SHRI. ULHAS GANGI GAONKAR ... Applicant Versus SHRI. SANJAY RATNAKAR KHANDEPARKAR ... Respondent Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B. Sardessai, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 20th July, 2010 P.C. Heard learned counsel on behalf of both the parties. 2. The applicant/complainant seeks condonation of delay of 64 days, in filing application for leave to appeal. The impugned judgment was passed on 28.12.2009 by the learned JMFC, Bicholim. According to the complainant he collected the documents on 7.1.2010 and then approached the Advocate who was conducting his case and who informed him that he would prefer an appeal against the said judgment and told him to contact in the month of February, 2010 as there was still time to file appeal, but when the applicant/complainant went somewhere in the last week of February, 2010, the applicant was told by him that he had to prefer an appeal to High Court and he has to engage another lawyer. Disappointed with the answer given by the Advocate, the applicant collected the file and then towards the end of April, 2010 visited the present Advocate who was looking after another matter of the applicant. 3. Applicant has filed medical certificate from Mardolkar hospital to say that the applicant was advised bed rest on account of acute PIVD and right Sciatica from 26/2/2010 to 23/4/2010. 4. The applicant has filed his own affidavit. 5. Admittedly, the applicant had another advocate, appearing in another case in the High Court. I find extremely difficult to accept the explanation that his trial Court advocate would call him for the second time only to tell him that he had to engage another advocate. This explanation is unacceptable. Although the expression sufficient cause is construed liberally, the Court is required to adopt rational common sense approach while interpreting the concept of sufficient cause and the Court should not readily accept whatever the party alleges to explain away his default. Therefore there is no explanation for the delay from 7.1.2010 to last week of February, 2010. If the complainant was unwell from 26th February, 2010 to 23rd April, 2010 the complainant has not specified the date in the last week of February when he went to meet his trial Court Advocate, except for vaguely stating that it was in the last week. 6. Counsel on behalf of respondent has also submitted that the complainant has not mentioned the date on which the documents were applied and this omission is deliberate. It appears to be so. 7. Application appears to have been filed casually. There is no merits in same, and accordingly it is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. vn