sat 1 ca 291-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 291 OF 2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 26311 OF 2010 Pushkardatta Narsing Dave, since deceased (Original Respondent) by his legal representatives Smt.Suvarna Pushkardatta Dave & Ors. ...Applicants vs. Miss Deepika @ Deepali Bharat Dave ...Respondent Ms.Amruta Desarda i/b. Mr.N.P. Deshpande for the Applicants. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. OCTOBER 13, 2011 P.C :- 1 By this civil application, the applicants have prayed for condoning 630 days delay caused in filing the appeal. 2 The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th September, 2008 passed in Petition No.C-No.59/2007. By this order, the petition filed by the applicants for seeking cancellation of a decree passed in sat 2 ca 291-2010 P.C.No.60/2005 dated 31st May, 2006 has been rejected. By the judgment and decree dated 31st May, 2006, the petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent. The application was filed by the respondent- minor through her mother. Her father is son of applicant no.1 and brother of applicant nos.2 to 4. 3 We have perused this civil application and the cause shown for condoning the delay. In our opinion, the cause shown for condoning the delay is not at all sufficient. The cause shown in para nos.1 to 4 of the application reads thus :- (a) The Applicants are the original Petitioners in Petition C/No.59 of 2007 filed in the Family Court, Pune, seeking cancellation of a decree that that was passed by the Family Court in P.c.No.60 of 2005, in which, the Applicants were not even parties to P.C. No.60/05 but Hon’ble Court directed to them to pay to the Respondent maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand Only) per month. By judgment and Decree dated September 29, 2008, the said petition was dismissed. After the judgment was delivered, the Applicants applied for the certified copy on October 1, 2008. It was received on October 15, 2008. (b) After the copy received, the sat 3 ca 291-2010 Applicants ought to have filed Appeal, within the prescribed period. However, the Applicants tried to settle the matter with the Respondent. Accordingly, talks were held on number of occasions. However, they failed. Therefore, the Applicants filed their objection in Darkhast Proceedings at Exhibit 14, questioning the execution of the decree. By Order dated July 20, 2010, it was rejected. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “1” is a true copy of the said Order. (c) The Applicants state that thereafter, they wanted to challenge the said Order. However, they realized that unless the said Order. However, they realized that unless the Judgment and Decree of the Family Court NO.1, Pune in Petition C. No. 59 of 2007 is set aside by the Competent Court, they can not successfully object to the execution of decree. That is why, they have decided to challenge the Judgment and Decree in Petition C.No.59 of 2007 by way of the accompanying Family Court Appeal. (d) In the mean while, the appeal was time – barred. That is why, the Applicants are filing this application for condonation of delay. The applicants submit that there is just and sufficient reason to condone the delay caused in filing appeal. The interest of justice, therefore, demands that this Hon’ble Court may condone the delay caused in filing the accompanying Family Court Appeal.” 4 In our opinion, having considered the nature of challenge, this is not a fit case where an indulgence in condoning the delay of 630 days caused sat 4 ca 291-2010 in filing the appeal deserves to be shown, apart from the fact that the cause shown is not sufficient. 5 Hence, the application is rejected. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)