1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6649 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.29019 OF 2007 --------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders or directions orders and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------- Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mr.Nitin Mulye, advocate, for the applicant Mr.S.S.Patwardhan, advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY,2008 P.C. . Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 2744 days in preferring an appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 10th March, 2000 passed by the 2 learned Additional District Judge, Pandharpur in Civil Misc. Application No.119 of 1999. The applicant herein was himself the applicant in Civil Misc. Application No.119 of 1999 where the challenge was to the order dated 19th July, 1999 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner , Solapur passed in Enquiry Application No.9 of 1999. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 10th March, 2000, the application made by the applicant was allowed and a limited order of remand was passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. It appears that there was another appeal being 3 Appeal No.123 of 1999 preferred by some of the respondents herein for challenging the same order dated 19th July, 1999 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur. The said appeal has been disposed of by the Judgment and Order dated 30th October, 2007 by the learned Additional District Judge, Pandharpur. The said appeal was separately disposed of. 3. It cannot be argued that the applicant was not aware of the impugned order dated 10th March, 2000 as the said order has been passed on his application. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a practising advocate. The 4 learned counsel appearing for the applicant tried to submit that Civil Misc. Application No.119 of 1999 and 123 of 1999 ought have been disposed of together. He has placed a reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in that behalf. This submission is on the merits of the appeal. 4. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever in this application for gross delay of more than 2700 days in preferring the appeal. Hence, there is no merit in the application and the same is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)