IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.127 OF 2006 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.127 OF 2006 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.127 OF 2006 IN IN IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST.)NO.11751 OF 2006 FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST.)NO.11751 OF 2006 FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST.)NO.11751 OF 2006 Manish Vijay Nikam ...Appellant Manish Vijay Nikam ...Appellant Manish Vijay Nikam ...Appellant Vs. Vs. Vs. Snehalata Manish Nikam ...Respondent Snehalata Manish Nikam ...Respondent Snehalata Manish Nikam ...Respondent Mr.Shujauddin, Advocate for Appellant Mr.Shujauddin, Advocate for Appellant Mr.Shujauddin, Advocate for Appellant CORAM: SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE & CORAM: SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE & CORAM: SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATE : 4TH DECEMBER, 2006. DATE : 4TH DECEMBER, 2006. DATE : 4TH DECEMBER, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 56 days, as per the office note, and less than 90 days as 56 days, as per the office note, and less than 90 days as 56 days, as per the office note, and less than 90 days as per the Advocate for the Appellant. Respondent has filed per the Advocate for the Appellant. Respondent has filed per the Advocate for the Appellant. Respondent has filed affidavit in reply. She is absent. She has denied that affidavit in reply. She is absent. She has denied that affidavit in reply. She is absent. She has denied that there was any just and sufficient cause for not filing the there was any just and sufficient cause for not filing the there was any just and sufficient cause for not filing the application in time. However, we have perused the application in time. However, we have perused the application in time. However, we have perused the application and affidavit. Her contention is that she was application and affidavit. Her contention is that she was application and affidavit. Her contention is that she was under impression that there is limitation of 90 days for under impression that there is limitation of 90 days for under impression that there is limitation of 90 days for filing the Appeal. Therefore, it appears to be bonafide filing the Appeal. Therefore, it appears to be bonafide filing the Appeal. Therefore, it appears to be bonafide mistake therefore, the delay is condoned. mistake therefore, the delay is condoned. mistake therefore, the delay is condoned. 2. Civil Application disposed of. Keep the Appeal 2. Civil Application disposed of. Keep the Appeal 2. Civil Application disposed of. Keep the Appeal for admission on 18th December, 2006. for admission on 18th December, 2006. for admission on 18th December, 2006. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE, J.)