1 NMA 858 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.858 OF 2010 IN APPEAL (L) NO.21 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1884 OF 2002 IN SUIT NO.4345 OF 2001 M/s.R.J.Construction and Ors. ..... Appellants V/s. Premji Hirji Shah (since deceased) and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Gaurav Joshi a/w Smt.Jyoti Ghagh i/by M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for the appellant in APP(L) No.21 of 2010. Mr.F.E.D’Vitre, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Swapnil Bangur i/by L.C.Tolat & Co., for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.A.K.Shaikh, representative of Court Receiver present. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. By way of this notice of motion, it is prayed that delay of 1989 days in filing the appeal may be condoned. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that after the decree, talks for settlement were going on and the appellants are under the impression that the decree in question is not capable of being executed as the properties mentioned in the consent terms were not identified. It is further 2 NMA 858 of 2010 submitted that the appellants had some financial difficulties. In our view, none of these grounds mentioned are such, by which it can be said that there were justifiable grounds available for the appellants for getting inordinate delay condoned. If according to the appellants, the decree is not capable of being executed, it is always open to the appellants to raise this point in execution proceedings. So far as other aspect is concerned, no material has been placed on record regarding the financial difficulties of the appellants. Even otherwise, when the appellants are engaged in construction business, prima facie it is not possible to believe that the appellants were in financial constraints. The grounds mentioned in the affidavit in support of the notice of motion, hardly inspire any confidence for condonation of delay. Even otherwise, the decree in question is capable of being executed or not, is a point which can be taken in the execution proceedings. Hence, the notice of motion is rejected. 2. Registration of the appeal (L) No.21 of 2010 is accordingly refused. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )