1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.878 OF 2006 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER ST.NO.21529 OF 2006 Charan Trimbak Patil .. Applicant versus Mongheen Hiralal Patel & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.Bipin Joshi for the applicant. Mr.J.S. Kini for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 13th September 2006 DATED : 13th September 2006 DATED : 13th September 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. This application is for condonation of a delay of 334 days in filing of an appeal. 2 2. Mr.Kini learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the condonation of a delay. He points out that no satisfactory reason has been ascribed for the delay. Only a bald statement is made in paragraph no.3 of the petition that application for certified copy was not made by the Advocate for the petitioner in the trial court and therefore there has been a delay. No details have been given in the petition as to when the decision was rendered, when the certified copy was applied for, when the certified copy was received and after how many days of the receipt of the certified copy the appeal has been filed and why there has been delay. The application for condonation of the delay has been drafted in a slip-shod manner without giving any details. Learned counsel for the respondent is therefore justified in submitting that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. 3. For these reasons, civil application is dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J) (D.G. KARNIK, J) (D.G. KARNIK, J)