(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Civil Application No. 4168 of 2006 (In First Appeal Stamp No. 8837 of 2006) Mohd. Abdul Saleem s/o. Abdul Rahman, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Vishnupuri, Taluka & District : Nanded. .. Applicant. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Nanded. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nanded, Vishnupuri Project, Nanded. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. N.B. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondents. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 5TH AUGUST 2009. (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing a First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 12th March 1996, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanded, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 393/1993. 2. Heard Mr. P.V. Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr. N.B. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. 3. The delay is of 3603 days. The explanation for the inordinate delay caused in filing the appeal, given in the application, is that when the award was passed on 12th March 1996, the applicant was in the process of going to Saudi Arebia. It is stated that on 20th March 1996, he left India and went to Saudi Arebia. It is further stated that the applicant had given power of attorney to his relative Shri Siddhiqui. It is stated that the applicant was under bona fide belief that the said Shri Siddhiqui might have filed an appeal. However, it is stated that when the applicant came to India in 2006, he came to know that the appeal was not filed and thereafter, he applied for certified copy of judgment on 19th April 2006. The same was received on 21st April 2006. 4. We had asked the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant to produce a photostat copy of the passport of the applicant. We had also made it clear that, in the event, it is found that the applicant had not returned to India till 2006, the court may consider condoning the delay. (3) 5. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has expressed his inability to get photostat copy of passport of the applicant. 6. The delay is of almost ten years. It is also to be noted that in the application, the applicant has not stated that after he went to Saudi Arebia in 1996, he did not return to India till 2006. It is, thus, clear that the applicant was not diligent in prosecuting the remedy. 7. No doubt, that it is a settled law that the length of delay would not be relevant while condoning the same. But, at the same time, it is the duty of the applicant to establish that due to sufficient cause, he was prevented from filing an appeal within the prescribed limitation. The applicant has utterly failed to establish that due to any sufficient cause, he was prevented from filing an appeal within the prescribed limitation. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for condonation of delay. 8. The Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/ca4168