ca9989.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9989 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. APPLICANT VERSUS Shankar s/o Nivrruti Mudgal .. RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9990 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. APPLICANT VERSUS Suryanarayan s/o Deorao Mudgal .. RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9991 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. APPLICANT VERSUS Rajaram s/o Panda Jangale .. RESPONDENT ca9989.09 2 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9992 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. APPLICANT VERSUS Lahu s/o Deorao Mudgal .. RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9993 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. APPLICANT VERSUS Raosaheb s/o Maruti Patil & another .. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9994 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. APPLICANT VERSUS Ganpati s/o Panda Jangale .. RESPONDENT Mr. T.S. Lodhe, AGP for the State. ===== ca9989.09 3 CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 7 th JULY, 2011. PER COURT : 1 These are the applications presented by the State seeking codonation of delay of 2883 days occurred in presenting the appeals. 2 Judgment of the reference court is declared on 5-7-2001. Proposal to file appeal was forwarded to the Law and Judiciary department on 8-11-2001. It is stated that certified copy was applied on 13-8-2008 i.e. about seven years after the judgment. Certified copy was collected on 27-8-2008 and appeals are presented thereafter on 24-8-2009. There is no reason as to why certified copy was not applied for for a period of seven years even though proposal in respect of presentation of appeal was forwarded to the Law and Judiciary Department in the year 2001. Even after receipt of certified copy at the office of the Government Pleader on 1-9-2008, appeals are preferred after about one year thereafter. There are absolutely no reasons noted in the applications justifying occurrence of delay in presenting appeals after about eight years. In this view of the matter, applications praying for condonation of delay presented by the State being devoid of merit, are liable to be rejected. Applications are therefore rejected. In view ca9989.09 4 of rejection of applications, appeals presented by the State need not be registered. Appellant / State Government would be entitled to claim refund of court fees, in accordance with rules. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb