[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL W.P. NO.3122 OF 2004 Shri.Balbhim Ganapati Gadsing and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Ramchandra Mahipati Gadsing and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Surel S.Shah Advocate for Petitioners Mr.I.M.Khairdi Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JANUARY 14, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 14, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 14, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. Suit bearing RCS No.2 of 1993 came to be decided by the learned IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. Barshi against the father of the petitioners. Being aggrieved thereby, the father of the petitioners preferred an appeal. As there was some [-2-] delay in preferring the appeal, an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The said application came to be allowed by order dated 24.9.2002 subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/- by the applicant therein i.e. father of the petitioners. The applicant therein was directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.200/- on or before 10.10.2002. In the order dated 24.9.2002, the learned Additional District Judge had further directed that if the amount of costs is not deposited in time, it will be treated that the application for condonation of delay has been rejected. The said costs was not deposited within the said stipulated time period. It is an admitted fact that father of the petitioners died on 16.12.2002. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an application for condonation of delay in depositing amount of costs of Rs.200/- as imposed by the Court by order dated 24.9.2002. The said application came to be rejected. Hence, the present petition. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that their father was bedridden since 24.9.2002 till 16.12.2002 on which day, he died. It is further [-3-] the case of the petitioners that they did not have any knowledge about the order passed by the Court and therefore, they were unable to deposit the amount of costs as per the direction of the Court. It is further their case that after the death of their father, they were in grief and only after they received letter from their advocate, they appeared before the Court and made enquiries with their advocate whereupon they came to know that the said appeal was not registered due to non-payment of costs. Hence, they filed the application for condonation of delay in depositing the costs or for extension of time to deposit the costs as per the provisions of Section 148 of Civil Procedure Code. 5. In the present case, it is seen that the application was decided on 24.9.2002. The said order was noted by the counsel for the applicant therein. As far as the father of the petitioners being bedridden is concerned, the petitioners have not proved that their father i.e. original applicant died due to sickness. They have not produced any evidence on record to show that their father was indeed in a serious condition or in a condition that he was unable to move and he was [-4-] bedridden. It is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioners expired on 16.12.2002. The costs had to be deposited on or before 10.10.2002 an application could easily have been preferred for extension of time if the costs could not be deposited by 10.10.2002. The father of the petitioners died much after 10.10.2002. As far as the petitioners are concerned, the age of the petitioners nos.2 to 4 range between 30 to 51 years. The petitioner no.1 is aged 51 years. It is not as if the petitioners were minor. Even after the death of their father, application came to be preferred after almost three and half months. It cannot be accepted that they were in grief for a period of three and half months. As far as the application under Section 148 of Civil Procedure Code is concerned, it was submitted beyond the prescribed period. As far as condonation of delay is concerned, the order of the trial Court is very much clear that it was a conditional order. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were not having any knowledge about the said conditional order. Further it is seen that even after the conditional order was passed, their father i.e. original applicant was alive for about three months [-5-] and the father has not taken any steps to get the period extended or deposited the costs. As stated earlier, the petitioners have not produced any medical certificate or record to show that their father was bedridden from 24.9.2002 till the day he died on 16.12.2002. From the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that petitioners have proved any sufficient cause for condonation of delay in depositing the amount. It appears that in this case, there was negligence as well as inaction. Hence, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]