: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.596 OF 2009 Rameshchandra Chotalal Panchal .. Applicant V/s. Hemraj S. Thakkar & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.597 OF 2009 Chotalal Shivram Panchal .. Applicant V/s. Hemraj S. Thakkar & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. R.D. Dave i/b. M/s. N.N. Vaishnawa & Co. for the Applicant. Mr. Girish Togani for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The order which is challenged in the present Civil Revision Application has been passed on 29th August, 2009 by the District Court, Thane in Civil M.A. No.309 of 2008, rejecting an application for condoning the delay in presenting the Appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.500 of 1992. The delay is of 857 days. : 2 : 2. The application filed by the applicant mentions the reasons for the delay as under : (a).that his Advocate did not inform him of the matter and, therefore, he was not aware of the decree having been passed against him. (b).that he obtained knowledge of the decree having been passed only when the Darkhast proceedings were served on him. (c).that he was unwell and under heavy medication. 3. I have perused the copy of the application condoning the delay as well as the reply to the same. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court has considered the application correctly and in the proper perspective. The learned Judge has observed that despite several notices to the applicant, including a communication sent by his Advocate to him through R.P.A.D., the applicant chose not to pay any heed to these communications. In fact, the letter sent by R.P.A.D. by his Advocate was refused : 3 : by the applicant. In these circumstances, the Court has observed that the trial Court has passed the decree as the Advocate had no instructions in the matter. The trial Court has described the applicant as completely negligent and has concluded that his actions were not bonafide. 4. The trial Court has also considered the fact that the applicant had not approached the Court immediately after the Darkhast proceedings were served. In fact, the application for a certified copy of the trial Court’s order was made on 17th June, 2008. A copy was received by the applicant on 8th July, 2008. However, no action was taken by him thereafter till 19th December, 2008. He then preferred the application for condonation of delay in presenting the Appeal. The Court has, therefore, held that it was not necessary to condone the delay of 857 days in presenting the Appeal since there was gross negligence on the part of the applicant and sufficient cause had not been shown by him to condone the delay. : 4 : 5. The order of the trial Court does not reflect that the applicant had filed any medical certificates indicating that he was unwell after the trial Court’s order. This would obviously be so because the applicant had not filed the same before the trial Court. In fact, the Advocate for the respondents categorically asserts that the medical certificates were not produced before the trial Court. Even assuming these medical certificates, which are annexed to the present Civil Revision Application, had been produced before the trial Court, they are of the years 2003, 2007 and 2008. In my opinion, these medical certificates would not help the applicant in any manner. 6. It is now well settled that a litigant cannot be indolent and expect the Court to wait for him endlessly before deciding a matter. It is also equally well settled that a litigant must be aware of its rights and must prosecute litigation with alacrity. If a litigant is unable to prosecute or initiate action within the time stipulated in law, : 5 : he must show sufficient cause for such delay. The reasons given must be good and acceptable to the Court. 7. In my opinion, the applicant in the present case has not given any reason to condone the delay in preferring the Appeal. Besides the fact that the applicant was negligent throughout the trial, he has not bothered to file an Appeal immediately after becoming aware of the decree having been passed against him. The medical certificates on which the applicant has chosen to rely, have not been produced before the trial Court and, in my opinion, they do not help the applicant. The applicant has chosen to blame his Advocate for the delay. In the present case, in my opinion, the trial Court has rightly held that there was no negligence on the part of the Advocate. 8. The Civil Revision Applications are dismissed. 9. The status-quo granted earlier is extended by a period of four weeks from today. .......