* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4699 OF 2009 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 22942 OF 2009 Mr. Sudhir Dayanand Navghare & Ors. .......Applicants. V/S. Shri. Dashrath Anandrao Navghare & Ors. ....Respondents ------------ Mr. G.M. Savagave, adv. for the applicants. Mr. Paresh S. Madkaikar, adv. for the respondents. CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 3RD DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 2. This Civil Application is taken out for condonation of delay of 47 days in filing the appeal. The application is opposed by the respondents submitting that not only there is no ground whatsoever made out in the application for condonation, but there is a false statement made on oath by the applicants. 3. The impugned judgment and order was passed on 21st May, 2009. The applicants state at para-2 of the application that they had filed an application * 2 * for certified copy of the order on 22/05/2009 which was delivered to them on 2/7/2009. The applicants also claim to have applied for certified copy of the decree of judgment and order on 22/5/2009 which was allegedly delivered to them on 21/08/2009. 4. Mr.Madkaikar, the learned counsel for the respondents points out from the zerox copy of the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order which is annexed at page-11 of the appeal proceedings that the application for certified copy was made on 22/05/2009 in respect of both, the judgment and order, as well as, the decree. Apparently, the applications were not complete in all respects. As per the stamp of the office on the certified copy of the decree, as well as, the judgment and order, shows that the application was completed on 30/08/2009. Thereafter, the certified copies were made ready by the office and made available to the applicants. When this fact was pointed out, Mr. Savagave, the learned counsel for the applicants, he is unable to offer any explanation for the incomplete application presented on 22/5/2009 and the delay in removing the infirmities therein till 30/08/2009. The stamps of the Bombay City Civil Court shows that after the application was readied in every respect, no time was lost by the office in preparing the certified copy and in making the same available to the applicants. 5. Even if the claim of the applicants at para-2 of the application is accepted at its face value, the applicants are still required to explain the delay * 3 * in filing the First Appeal after receipt of the certified copies on 20/7/2009 and 21/08/2009 respectively. This explanation is given at paras-2 and 3 of the Civil Application. The applicants state that after getting the certified copies of the impugned judgment and order, they met their trial court lawyer, discussed the matter with him and took the decision of filing the present appeal. Thereafter, they approached the present advocate for preparing the appeal papers. They discussed the matter with him and finalised their decision of filing the appeal. All these averments are put in without any particulars whatsoever. The applicants do not state the date on which they approached the two lawyers, the time taken for discussing the matters with them and for taking the decision of filing the appeal. Further, at para-3 of the application, the applicants state as follows : 3. “ The applicants say and submit that after deciding to file the present appeal, sometime was consumed to get prepared the certified copy of the relevant documents and sometime was also consumed in the said procedure and also sometime consumed for the arrangement of funds to filing the present appeal and hence the delay was occurred to file the present appeal.” 6. The above averments made in the application, are very vague without any particulars whatsoever. The applicants do not specify the relevant documents of which certified copy was to be obtained, the procedure adopted * 4 * for getting them and the time consumed for making arrangements of funds. In the circumstances, the applicants have not made out any case whatsoever for condonation of delay. Hence the Civil Application is dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of the Civil Application, First Appeal (St) No. of 2009 does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]