IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1551 OF 2006. APPLICATION NO.1551 OF 2006. APPLICATION NO.1551 OF 2006. IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.6646 OF 2006. APPEAL (ST) NO.6646 OF 2006. APPEAL (ST) NO.6646 OF 2006. Shrikant Murlidhar Chandratreya ...Applicant. Versus. Raghukul Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit & Ors. ...Respondents Shri P.K.Hushing for the Applicant. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 19th MARCH, 2008. : 19th MARCH, 2008. : 19th MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of more than nine years in preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04th December, 1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune. Only explanation for delay of more than nine years is in paragraph No.1 of the application which reads thus: "1 The Appellant submits tht the Appellant has preferred substantial appeal in this case. The appellant has got very good chances if the amtter is herad on merits. The appellant submits that though this matter was decided by the lower court in the year 1996, the said matter was decided without proper evidence. The appellant did not have any control over the documents which were in the custody of the : 2 : 2 : 2 : society and which were required to be produced as evidence. In fact an application was submitted for production of the documents, but the office bearers of teh society did not produce those documents. The appellant suffered a shotck out of that. The appellant was put to a condition of hand to mouth. The appellant has also suffered physically and was subjected to various disesases because of the tensions. The appellant was even required to undergo angeoplasti. The said matter also created total disharmony in his social life as well as family life. On one hand the applicant was not having proper documents to show that the judgment of the ower fcourt was erroneous and on the other hand he was suffering because of the financial and physical problems. Because of all these reasons there is delay in preferring this particular appeal". 2. Reliance has been placed by the advocate for applicant on a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ashok Balaji Ratan Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur (2004 (6) Bombay Cases Reporter Page 61). It is submitted that if delay is not condoned, the decree which is ex-facie illegal will be confirmed. : 3 : 3 : 3 : 3. As is apparent from the application, the averments made therein are very vague. Except for stating that the applicant was suffering from various diseases and was required to undergo angioplasty, nothing further is stated to explain the delay of nine years and more. Another ground sought to be made out in paragraph No.2 is that documents were received only in the year 2005 when the applicant preferred a Writ Petition. Here again inaction from the year 1996 to the year 2005 is not explained. 4. In so far as the decision of the learned single Judge in the case of Ashok Ratan (supra) is concerned, it must be stated here that the learned single Judge was dealing with a case where the learned Judge found that the decree which was subjected to challenge was totally illegal. In the said decision of the learned single Judge, he has taken a particular view in the peculiar facts of the case before him. On the basis of the said decision, the unexplained gross delay of nine years and more cannot be explained. There is no sufficient cause made out for condonation of delay. Application is rejected. 5. Civil Application No.125 of 2008 does not survive and the same is rejected. : 4 : 4 : 4 : Judge. Judge. Judge.