IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3182 OF 2007 IN APPEAL (L) NO.662 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1913 OF 2003 Girdhari Mangru Yadav ..... Appellant V/s. Fancy Corporation Ltd. ..... Respondent Mr.R.S.Upadhyay, Advocate, for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & SRI P.B.MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 26, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of four months and three days in filing the appeal. The only ground disclosed in the affidavit in support of notice of motion is that the Advocate for the appellant did not inform about the disposal of the petition to the appellant. The affidavit nowhere discloses as to what prevented the appellant from being in touch with his Advocate to know about the progress in the matter. Undisputedly, 2 the petition was filed in the year 2003 and it was disposed of in July 2007. There is absolutely no explanation in the affidavit as to what prevented the appellant from contacting his Advocate during this period to know the progress in the matter and this itself shows that the appellant was not interested in the matter in hand. It was only after four months from the date of disposal of the petition, that the appellant has for the first time challenged the order. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that any cause has been shown for the delay caused in moving the appeal and hence, we do not find any cause for condonation of delay. 3. It is also to be noted that in the impugned order itself, it has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that the Advocate for the appellant herein, who was respondent in the petition, had informed the Court that he has no instructions from the appellant. It is clearly disclosed total negligence on the part of the appellant, which does not justify condonation of delay. Hence, the notice of motion stands dismissed. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.)