1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.Z. No.42/2011 in L.P.A. St. No.20236/2010 in W.P. No.761/2006 (D) ( The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Yavatmal & another ..Vs.. Wasudeo s/o Eknath Chimane & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. D.M. Kale, A.G.P. for applicants. Ms Ashwini Athalye, Adv. for respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & S.B. DESHMUKH JJ. DATE : 26.4.2 011 . This is an application for condonation of delay of a period of 4 years and 32 days in filing the letters patent appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28th September 2006. From the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the date on which the learned A.G.P. Yavatmal informed the appellant about the judgment is not mentioned. No date, on which the appellant no.2 approached the Collector office and the Government Pleader, is given. It is stated that the appellant approached the Government Pleader’s office on 6th November 2006 seeking certified copy. By this time, the period of 30 days for filing the present appeal had expired and no sufficient cause can said to have arise during the period of limitation vide 1981 (1) 2 S.C.C. 495 (Ajit Singh Thakur and another V/s. State of Gujarat). Though the action taken after the period has expired, is not strictly relevant, it appears that the higher officials in Mantralaya were informed about the judgment and order on 23rd January 2007 and the proposal was given by the applicant on 6th November 2008 to the higher authorities. In the circumstances, we find that no sufficient cause is demonstrated for condoning the delay. There is a gross inordinate delay. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.