-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3491 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 558 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 4469 OF 1991 Prabhakar Dattatraya Kulkarni ).. Appellant Versus Union Bank of India and others )..Respondents Ms. D.M. Shende for the Appellant. Mr. G.K. Swamy for Respondent No.1. Mr. J.J. Shah i/b V.N. Shingnapurkar for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 31ST MARCH 2009 P.C. This is a Notice of Motion taken out by the Applicant for condonation of delay of five years and three months in filing the present Appeal. The Notice of Motion is vehemently opposed by the otherside. The reason given in the application for condonation of delay is that the Appellant had engaged one Mr. Arvind Bandiwadekar in the year 1992, who expressed his inability to appear and returned the papers. Thereafter, the Appellant engaged Mr. J.M. Bhatt on 12th June 1996 -2- who unfortunately died subsequently. The Suit was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte against the Appellant. An application filed for recalling of that order was dismissed. Finally, on 25th June 2003 order was passed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The reason given can hardly be termed as a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Even if it is assumed that the first Counsel had declined to appear, there is no justification as to why the Applicant took four years to get in touch with the another Counsel in pursuing the matter in accordance with law. It is a case of sheer negligence and irresponsible attitude of the Applicant. There is a delay of five years and three months. We see no reason to condone the delay. Notice of Motion dismissed. Consequently, Appeal also does not survive and the same is also disposed of as infructuous. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.