IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3846 OF 2007 IN APPEAL (L) NO.783 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1958 OF 1986 Cargo Movers of India ..... Appellant V/s. Jagdish Textiles & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.K.P.Anilkumar, Advocate for the Appellant Mr.Rahul Narichania i/b Motiwalla & Co. for the respondent No.1 & 2. CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & P.B.MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 19, 2008. P.C 1. Heard. 2. Though, it is sought to be contended in the affidavit in support of notice of motion that there was no notice received from the High Court, it has been clearly admitted in the affidavit that the appellant (original Defendant No.1) had given authority to Shri S.L.Ahuja, Advocate, through defendant No.2 for his appearance in the suit and to enable him to present on behalf of the appellant. The affidavit nowhere discloses any reason for 2 giving instructions to Shri Ahuja, Advocate, in case the appellant was not really served in the matter. Indeed, if there was no service of notice to the appellant, there would have been no occasion for the appellant to engage the Advocate in the matter. On the other hand, the contentions which are sought to be raised in the matter after passing the ex-parte decree, are clearly after-thought. There is no cause shown for long delay of 430 days in filing the appeal. Admittedly, meanwhile the appellant had filed notice of motion, which was withdrawn. In the circumstances, in the absence of sufficient cause being shown for such a long delay and the contention about non-service of notice in the matter being apparently unbelievable and since the appellant had full knowledge about the filing of the suit and had engage the Advocate, there is no cause shown for condonation of such a long delay and thus, the notice of motion is rejected. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.)