1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4713/04. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. ..vs.. Smt.Kishoribai Bikey and ors. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 2nd May, 2008. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The delay is of 117 days and that is sought to be condoned. What is stated in the application is that some papers were with the Divisional Office, Durg (M.P.) and there was some misunderstanding with regard to those documents and therefore, required information could not be obtained. Ultimately, available papers were forwarded by Nagpur Divisional Office to Regional Office at Pune for approval. The Judgment came to be delivered on 28/10/2003. Copy was applied for on 30/10/2003 2 and same was obtained on 17/11/2003. Although the copies were received on 17/11/2003 the appeal came to be filed on 7/6/2004. 3. As stated in the application because of some misunderstanding required information could not be obtained by the Nagpur Divisional Office and ultimately available papers were forwarded by the Nagpur Divisional office to the Regional Office at Pune for taking decision of preferring an appeal. This can hardly be a ground. The case was tried at Chandrapur and all papers with regard to the said case were at Chandrapur and could be at Chandrapur. There is no question of calling the papers from Divisional Office at Durg (M.P.), much less the original papers, when the case was already decided. There is no explanation why the Divisional Office at Durg did not send the papers and why there is a delay from the Regional Office at Pune in taking the decision. There is no proper explanation of the delay. On the other hand, the action taken by the officers shows that they were negligent in sending the concerned papers to the office within time. The application, therefore, stands rejected. JUDGE chute 3