1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 98 OF 2011 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (st) NO. 13072 OF 2011 a/w. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2011 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (st) NO.13072 OF 2011 Rudolf Lobo .. Applicant Versus Mrs. Vini Rudolf Lobo ...Respondent Mr.R.C.Dhuru for Applicant . Mr. M.K.Ghadigaonkar for Respondent CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- 1st AUGUST, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the averment made in the application. 2. The averment in the application is that the applicant was appearing in person and being a layman was ill advised in resorting to application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. The fact remains that the said application is filed only on 5th October 2010. The impugned decision 2 was passed on 13th January 2010. Even according to the applicant he immediately applied for certified copy thereof on 16th January, 2010 which was made ready and delivered to him on 18th February 2010, No reason is forthcoming as to what prevented the applicant to take recourse to remedy under Section 127 until October 2010. 3. Explanation offered by the petitioner is unacceptable. In our opinion, no sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay of 358 days. The fact that the application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was rejected on 4.3.2011 and soon thereafter the applicant filed the present appeal along with application for condonation of delay on 27th April, 2011 does not absolve the applicant from offering explanation for the period between January, more particularly from February till October, 2010 of not resorting to any proceeding whatsoever. Hence rejected. 4. In view of above, Civil Application No.99 of 2011 does not survive and hence disposed of. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)