1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION CAS NO.1066/2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.386/2010 PANJAB LAXMAN NIMKAR ..VS.. MADHUKAR LAXMAN NIMKAR Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Anand Deshpande Adv. for appellant Shri N.S. Bhattad, Adv for respondent no.1(i)(ii)(iv)(vi) CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 29.11.2011. Heard. Counsel for the appellant states that prayer for condonation of delay made before the District Judge in filing the first appeal was turned down and the delay was more than 300 days. He also states that the appellant was proceeded exparte in the trial court because the appellant did not at all appear in the trial court and the decree came to be passed for delivery of possession of 35 R area of land to the respondents/ plaintiffs. The District Judge did not accept the reason that the appellant was suffering from jaundice and was taking treatment in village rather than going to doctors. The District Judge also found that the said reason furnished was not supported by any other evidence. While filing this appeal, there is delay of 420 days. The only ground stated in the application for condonation of delay is 2 that the appellant had preferred a writ petition against the order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the District Judge -1, Darvha, rejecting condonation of delay application. The delay of 420 days is inordinate and looking to the entire facts narrated above, in my opinion, the delay has not been properly explained and therefore, I am not inclined to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is therefore, rejected. Second appeal no.386/2010 consequently stands dismissed. JUDGE SMP