ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2092 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 2092 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 2092 OF 2008 IN IN IN APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL (LODGING) NO.255 OF 2008 (LODGING) NO.255 OF 2008 (LODGING) NO.255 OF 2008 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2960 OF 2005 OF MOTION NO. 2960 OF 2005 OF MOTION NO. 2960 OF 2005 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.3757 OF 1998 NO.3757 OF 1998 NO.3757 OF 1998 Mr.Madhukar Venkatesh Ullal ...Appellant. Versus Mrs.Anita Hermy D’souza & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Pankaj Kawali i/by Ms.U.M.Jhaveri for the Appellant. Mr.K.N.Gaikwad for Respondent No.14. CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.B.MHASE & : S.B.MHASE & : S.B.MHASE & R.V.MORE, R.V.MORE, R.V.MORE, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2008 : 22ND AUGUST, 2008 : 22ND AUGUST, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides. 2. This Notice of Motion is filed for condonation of delay of 285 days in filing the present Appeal. Respondent Nos.1 to 13, though served, have not appeared nor filed an affidavit. Respondent Nos. 16 has filed an affidavit opposing the condonation of delay. The Respondent No.14 has appeared through Advocate, but it is told that Respondent No.14 is a formal party. However, the Respondent No.14 has opposed the application for ( 2 ) condonation of delay. We find that the main contesting parties are Respondent Nos.1 to 13 and 15, 17 and 18 who have not filed reply. Therefore, as a rule of non-traverse of proceedings, the facts pleaded in the affidavit stands proved against them. 3. The Applicant has taken a treatment in the G.M.Medical Centre, Khar (W) Mumbai. We find that for the ground of illness, a certificate has been issued by the hospital to that effect which is annexed to the affidavit. The Respondent No.14 and 16 have only contended that the name of the doctor is not disclosed in the said certificate. However, on the Medical Certificate, we find that the name of Dr.M.Kumar appears on the rubber stamp. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.14 that the name of doctor is not disclosed is not true and, in fact, the case is made out by the Appellant. Therefore, we find that there is a sufficient case to condone the delay. We, therefore, condone the delay. Office is directed to number the Appeal and process it for admission. 4. The Notice of Motion is disposed of, accordingly. ( 3 ) (R.V.MORE, (R.V.MORE, (R.V.MORE, J.) J.) J.) (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, J.) J.) J.)