1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application Nos. 12556, 12034, 12558, 12560, 12564, 12566, 12568, 12570, 12572, 12574, 12576, 12578, 12562, 12580 of 2009 (for condonation of delay) WITH Civil Application Nos.12557, 12559, 12561, 12565, 12567,12569,12563 12571, 12573, 12575, 12577, 12579, 12581 and 12586 of 2009 (for stay) Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: P.R.BORKAR, J. Date : March 17, 2010 Shri Anand Chaware, Advocate for the applicants. Shri B.N. Nagargoje, Advocate, holding for Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar Advocate for Respondent No.1. Smt.R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ----- 1. The first group of applications is for condonation of delay ranging between 545 to 548 days in filing first appeals against award passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Basmatnagar, District Hingoli, in 2 L.A.R. No.5/06 decided on 3.11.2007 and other connected L.A.Rs. The appeals are sought to be filed against decision in L.A.Rs. arising out of the same award. 2. Heard Shri Chaware, learned Advocate for applicants and Shri B.N. Nagargoje Advocate holding for Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar Advocate for respondent. 3. In paragraphs 4 and of application, delay is sought to be explained by stating that after decision by the Reference Court, copies of the judgment and award could not be obtained for want of funds; funds could be received only in March 2008 although decision was November 2007. Thereafter copies were immediately obtained and the Executive Engineer made a communication with higher authorities vide letters on different dates ranging between 23.5.2008 to 17.7.2008. There were deliberations with superiors who are stationed at Aurangabad. Thereafter decision was 3 taken to file the appeals and, therefore, one of the Advocates on panel was engaged. The Sub Divisional Officer was deputed to give instructions to the Advocate. The applicants/appellants approached the Advocate on 10.10.2008 and handed over him the documents. On 27.11.2008, the Advocate gave to the appellant estimated expenses towards court fees and other expenses. Therefore, on 17.12.2008, the Advocate by letter called for certain documents and Vakalatnama. It is stated that by December 2008, everything was ready and the sanction for funds could be received only in July 2009. 4. It is, therefore, clear that the appellants took time from December 2008 to July 2009 for making funds available for purchase of court fee stamps and then appeals with application for condonation of delay were filed. It is thus clear that there was no delay on the part of the Advocates in the trial 4 court or in this Court, or Executive Engineer, but the delay was mainly on the part of the superiors in sanctioning funds. Absolutely, no reason is given why they did not act with urgency. Even the funds to get copies of the judgment and award were not made available from November 2007 till March 2008. 5. Not being satisfied with the reasons given, in my opinion, this is not a case wherein delay should be condoned. 6. I rely on observations in paragraph 12 in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Jose Prazeres de Piedade Pinto 2006 (2) Bom. C.R. 773 and paragraphs 24 and 25 of Pundalik Jalram Patil vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon 2008 (6) Bom.C.R.513, 7. In the result, applications for condonation of delay of inordinate nature are dismissed. 5 8. Consequently, civil applications for stay do not survive and hence, those stand disposed of as such. pnd/ca12556.09 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)