0403cas145.09.sxw 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. CAS NO. 145/2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2007 Shyamsunder Khandelwal & others Vs. Chandraprakash Agrawal & others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATE : 04th March, 2009. By this application the applicants are seeking extension of time. This Court, by order dated 06/8/2008 allowed civil application No. 8320 of 2007 subject to condition that the applicants/appellants furnishing surety of Rs. 50 lacs and time of three months was granted to comply with the order. The applicants submit that they applied for obtaining solvency certificate but as the revenue authorities were busy, the solvency certificate was not issued. It is further submitted that in spite of repeated efforts and requests, the solvency certificate was not issued to the applicants. The applicants further submitted that they have filed civil application No. 33 of 2009 for seeking extension and by order dated 07/01/2009, this Court granted time till 31/01/2009 to furnish the solvent surety. 0403cas145.09.sxw 2 The applicants submit that in spite of efforts of the applicants, they could not receive the solvency certificate till 31/01/2009 and on 01/02/2009, being Sunday, the applicants were unable to receive the solvency certificate from the revenue authority. Ultimately, the solvency certificate was received by the applicants on 02/02/2009 and the applicants approached to the Court at Gondia with the applications. Those applications were rejected on the ground that the time to file solvency certificate is expired as the time granted by the Hon'ble High Court was till 31/01/2009. The learned Advocate submits that though applicants made every effort, but for the reasons which were beyond their capacity, they were unable to comply with the order passed by this Court. It was urged by the learned Advocate that the circumstances which caused delay, were beyond the control of the applicants. 2. Advocate Shri Mohta appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the application and submits that this Court by order dated 07/01/2009 has granted extension to the applicants on condition of payment of costs and no further extension be granted. 3. It is true that this Court, by 0403cas145.09.sxw 3 order dated 06/8/2008 directed the applicants to furnish the surety. It is also true that the extension was sought by the applicants and this Court by order dated 07/01/2009 granted extension to furnish the surety by 31/01/2009 and the applicants were unable to furnish the surety within that period. In my opinion, the reasons mentioned in the application do indicate that the applicants made efforts but for some procedural difficulties, they were unable to furnish the surety by 31/01/2009. It is also not in dispute that on 02/2/2009 the applicants have approached to the Court at Gondia for furnishing the surety. In my opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to allow the application. Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of the prayer made in the application. 4. The application is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE wwl