1 caf1320-10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1320 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 8781 OF 2010 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Applicant V/s. Bhupendra Damjibhai Tank & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, senior counsel with Mr. Vinod Mahadik for the applicant. Mr. Anil C. Singh a/w. Mr. Anil D. Yadav a/w. Mr. Anand O. Singh i/b. Mr. D. R. Shah for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : JULY 22, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This is an application for condonation of delay of 5 years and 317 days in preferring an Appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court. For challenging the impugned decree dated 17th April, 2004, Appeal has been preferred in March 2010. Perused application and additional affidavit filed by one Vaibhav Bhikaji Chandanshive. Perused the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents. 2. There is hardly any satisfactory explanation for delay except the usual excuses put forth by public bodies like the Municipal 2 caf1320-10 Corporation. In the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents to the additional affidavit, reliance has been placed on communication dated 19th June, 2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of the applicant to the respondents. The said communication specifically refers to the impugned decree and the request made by the respondents by their letter dated 16th June, 2004 for grant of alternative accommodation in terms of the impugned decree. By the said letter, the Assistant Commissioner of the applicant called for the respondents to suggest three sites. In fact, on the basis of the representation made by the respondents on the basis of the impugned decree, a detailed note was prepared by the Assistant Commissioner on 15th December, 2005 offering remarks in respect of the sites suggested by the respondents. This letter is sufficient to show that not only that the applicant was aware about the impugned decree at least on 19th June, 2004, but the applicant also acted upon the impugned decree by calling the respondents to suggest alternative sites. There is absolutely no explanation to the said letter in any of the affidavits filed by the applicant. There is a gross delay of about six years in preferring an Appeal. In view of the aforesaid letter addressed by the Assistant Commissioner of the applicant, it is obvious that there is no sufficient cause for condoning such a long explained delay. Application is accordingly rejected. 3 caf1320-10 3. Civil Application for stay does not survive and the same is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)