Mpt CAF NO.4838/10 FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4838 of 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.14085 of 2005 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 10th January 2011 P.C. : 1. This application is for condonation of delay in making an application for restoration of an appeal and delay condonation application both of which were dismissed in default. In paragraph nos.4 to 6 of the application, it is stated that previous advocate had withdrawn herself from the appeal and the applicant Insurance Company wanted to engage another advocate and due to the time taken in appointing a new advocate, the delay has been caused. The delay is more than three years. In my view, explanation given by the applicant is not satisfactory. Applicant would not have required more than three years after return of the brief by the previous advocate for engaging a new advocate. 2. I am not satisfied that there exists any good and satisfactory cause for condonation of delay of 1227 days. Application is accordingly rejected. In view of this, rejected case does survive and is disposed of. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)