1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2167 OF 2009 IN APPEAL (L) NO. 385 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 402 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.289 OF 2009 M/s.Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .. Appellants Vs Mr. Vikas Bhalla. .. Respondent -- Shri Chetan Kapadia, Ms Dipti Trivedi for Henal Vakharia & Associates for the Appellants. Shri Tushar Cooper along with Shri Mustafa Kachwala i/by M. Kachwala for the Respondent. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 27TH JULY, 2009 P.C. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd April, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge declining to grant interim relief to the Appellants against the Respondent. The Court noticed that the ground for injunction as prayed would virtually amount to granting specific performance of a contract of a 2 service. The contention raised is that Clause 4 of the Agreement dated 5th April, 2007 contained negative covenant which needs to be enforced against the Respondent. The present appeal is barred by time. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants also contends that in the affidavit they have explained the delay from month to month and delay should be condoned. The present Notice of Motion No.2167 of 2009 has been taken out by the Appellants for condonation of delay of 385 days in filing the present Appeal. We may notice that against the order dated 22nd April, 2008 the Appellants had filed the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which came to be dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 2nd February, 2009 where opportunity was granted to the Appellants to approach this Court. However, the present appeal was lodged only on 10th June, 2009 in the Registry of this Court. There is hardly any explanation for the delay caused in filing appeal. All that is said is that it took time for the Appellants to get instructions from Delhi office for approval of draft of the Appeal and finally for instituting the Appeal before this Court. This explanation does not impress us inasmuch as the Appeal was already ready with them, as they had filed the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. 3 We are unable to understand as to why such inordinate delay has been caused for the purpose of filing the present Appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to condone the delay and in any case, the merits of the case would hardly justify the challenge to the findings in the impugned order, as the suit of the present Appellants is for injunction and damages/compensation in lieu of specific performance and for breach or non performance of the agreement and in the alternative which will continue its hearing in the court of competent jurisdiction. The Notice of Motion accordingly is dismissed. 2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion for condonation of delay, the present Appeal also stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J