1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1679 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.8949 OF 2009 The Regional Director, ESIC .... Applicants Mumbai (Ori. opponents) Vs. Hotel Anand & Anr. .... Respondents (Ori. applicants) Mr. H.V. Mehta, Advocate for applicants Mr. S.A. Mane i/by Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar, Advocate for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 16th April, 2010 P.C. 1. This Civil Application is taken out by the Regional Direction, Employees State Insurance Corporation for condonation of delay of 164 days in filing the appeal to challenge correctness and legality of order dated 20th August 2008. The application is opposed by the respondents on the ground that the applicant has not made out any case whatsoever to explain the delay in filing the appeal. 2. Perusal of the Civil Application shows that it does not mention even the date of the judgment and decree required to be challenged. The Industrial Court by its judgment and order dated 20 ’ th August 2008 allowed 2 the application filed by respondent no.1 under Section 77 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The applicant had applied for certified copy of the judgment and order on 28th August 2008 and received it on the same day. The events thereafter stated at paragraph 6 of the Civil Application, which read as follows : The Applicants say that after obtaining the certified “ copy, the Applicants were required to obtain the opinion from the advocate who appeared in the matter. The advocate gave his opinion recommending for filing appeal in the matter and thereafter the case papers were forwarded to Mumbai Office of the Corporation. The applicants further say that thereafter the Regional Director and the Deputy Regional Director considered the matter and accordingly decided to file the appeal, and the case papers were forwarded to the counsel for drafting the Appeal. The applicants further say that the Advocate for the applicant thereafter had a meeting with the office of the Corporation and the draft appeal was prepared and forwarded to the Corporation for filing .” 3. The averments quoted herein above are without any particulars whatsoever. But, during the course of arguments, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant states that he was approached by the applicant for opinion in the month of November 2008, at that time, he gave his opinion based only on the impugned judgment without asking for any further information or clarification. Thereafter the applicant again approached Mr. Mehta on 23rd January 2009, this time with a request to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and order. Thereafter Mr. Mehta sought further information from the applicant which was supplied to him two 3 months thereafter i.e. 23rd March 2009. The present application came to be filed on 4th April 2009. Even if all the dates given by Mr. Mehta during the oral submissions are to be accepted without demur still the same do not explain the delay from November 2008 to 23rd January 2009 and from 23rd January 2009 to 23rd March 2009. 4. Mr. Mane, leaned counsel for the respondents submits that since there is no case whatsoever made out in the application for condonation of delay much less satisfactory, the right which has accrued to the respondents on account of expiry period of limitation cannot be disturbed lightly. 5. Neither the civil application nor the oral submissions made thereon make out any case for condonation of delay of 164 days in filing the appeal. The averments made in the application are vague and without necessary particulars. The particulars stated in the oral submission also leave without any explanation period of four months. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant has not made out any case for condonation of delay. Hence, the Civil Application is dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. In view of dismissal of the Civil Application, the appeal does not survive, the same is accordingly dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)