ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3945 OF OF MOTION NO. 3945 OF OF MOTION NO. 3945 OF 2007 2007 2007 IN IN IN APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL (L) NO. 548 OF 2007 (L) NO. 548 OF 2007 (L) NO. 548 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 749 OF 1981 NO. 749 OF 1981 NO. 749 OF 1981 Chandru Lachmandas Raheja ...Appellant. Vs. Nancy Francis Rego & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. F. Divetre, Sr. Counsel, Mr. Birendra Saraf, Mr. Devesh Juvekar, Mr. M. Mehta i/by M/s. Humranwala & Co. for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 07TH JANUARY, 2008 : 07TH JANUARY, 2008 : 07TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned Senior counsel for the Appellant. Perused the Notice of Motion and affidavit in support thereof. For the reasons stated specially in paragraph Nos. 12 to 16, sufficient cause is made out for condoning 61 days delay in filing the above appeal. There is no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the Appellant. Hence, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant undertakes to get the Appeal numbered within a period of two weeks from today. ( 2 ) (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)