caf3505/09 (1) agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3505 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST NO.20918 OF 2009 United India Insurance Co Ltd .. Applicant versus Mrs.Limbabi Pralhad Tapghale & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Ranjan Tripathi i/by Mr.S.M.Vidyarathi for the applicant. Mr.S.M.Chavanke for the respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29th September 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. This is an application by applicant-insurance company for condonation of delay of 3 years and 188 days in preferring an appeal against judgment and order made by the learned Commissioner in a Claims Petition filed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. According to the case of the applicant, the impugned judgment and award dated 16th December 2005 was passed ex- parte. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the application, that the applicant became aware of the impugned judgment and order on 19th December 2007 when recovery notice was received on the basis of the impugned judgment and order. It is stated that thereafter search was made to find out the insurance policy details. An application was made on 11th February 2008 before the learned Commissioner for setting aside the impugned judgment caf3505/09 (2) and order. On 19th November 2008, the said application was rejected on the ground that delay in filing application was not explained. It is pertinent to note that there is a further delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was filed on 21st August 2009. It is contended that to avoid any further delay, instead of challenging the order dated 19th November 2008, it was decided to prefer an appeal. In paragraph 9 of the application it is stated that application for certified copy of the impugned judgment and order was made on 21st April 2009 and the same was ready on 23rd April 2009. Thus, application for grant of certified copy of the impugned order was made five months after the application for setting aside the impugned order was rejected by the learned Commissioner. Though the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order was obtained on 23rd April 2009, the present appeal was preferred on 25th August 2009. 2 It is pertinent to note that application for setting aside the impugned judgment and order made by the applicant was dismissed on 19th November 2008 on the ground that the delay was not explained. The said order was not challenged by the applicant. Thereafter the present appeal has been belatedly filed. There is a gross delay at all stages on the part of the applicant. There is no explanation for such a gross delay. Moreover, the order dated 19th November 2008 passed by the Commissioner has been accepted by the applicant. Hence, no case is made out for condonation of delay. Application is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)