3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 11749, 11751, 11753, 11755, 11757, 11759, 11761, 11763, 11765, 11767 OF 2009 (for condonation of delay) CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 11750, 11752, 11754, 11756, 11758, 11760, 11762, 11764, 11766, 11768 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. DATED : 25.03.2010 1. These are applications for condonation of delay of 885 days in filing First Appeals against common judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga, Dist. Latur, in L.A.R. No. 70 of 1998 and other connected matters decided on 06.02.2007. 2. The reasons given for delay in the applications are that the judgment was delivered on 06.02.2007 and thereafter the Government Pleader made proposal to the Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department for sanction to file appeals. It is stated that the 3 sanction was received by the office of the Government Pleader on 03.12.2007. It is not explained why there was delay of ten months in giving sanction. It is further stated that the appeal memos were drafted on 06.12.2007, but thereafter the concerned A.G.P. made communication for getting typed copies of judgment and award, difference chart and certified copies. It is stated that the difference chart was received on 24.04.2008 and the certified copies were received on 08.10.2008. It is not explained why there was so much delay in preparation of difference chart or obtaining certified copies. There is delay from July, 2008 to 24.04.2008 for receiving difference chart and delay up to 08.10.2009 is not explained. Ultimately, the appeals with the applications were filed on 08.10.2009. 3. I am not satisfied with the reasons given as the delay is not properly explained. It is also not explained why immediately after the decision the application for certified copy was not given and why there should be so much delay in preparation of 3 difference chart and preparation of typed copies. Not being satisfied with the reasons given, in my opinion, these applications deserve to be dismissed. 4. In order to get satisfied that a meritorious matter is not being thrown out at the threshold, this Court also perused judgment. 5. In the results, these applications for condonation of delay are dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the applications for condonation of delay, the First Appeals do not survive and consequently the Civil Applications for stay are also disposed of. 7. Issue Court Fee refund certificate as per rules. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/MAR10/ca11749.09