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.994 OF 2005. APPLICATION NO.994 OF 2005. APPLICATION NO.994 OF 2005. IN IN IN SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.25912 OF 2004. APPEAL (ST) NO.25912 OF 2004. APPEAL (ST) NO.25912 OF 2004. .................................................................. Office notes, office memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s orders. orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. .................................................................. Shri Sandeep s. Salunkhe for the Applicants. Shri M.A.Utgikar for the Respondent No.5. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 17th December, 2007. : 17th December, 2007. : 17th December, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard advocates appearing for the parties. The prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 14 years in preferring Second Appeal. 2. The impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court has been passed on 24th July, 1992. The only ground made out in the application is that when the impugned judgment and decree was passed, the first appellant was a minor. It is, however, not stated in the application as to why the second appellant could not prefer the appeal during the stipulated period of limitation. The cause title of the suit shows that the first appellant was three years old in the year 1982. Thus, he must have attained majority in the year 1998. Apart ... 2 ... from this aspect it is not disclosed in the application as to when the first appellant attained majority and as to why after attaining majority he could not prefer the appeal. 3. There is no reason whatsoever to condone delay of about 14 years. Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE