1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4732 OF 2007 IN APPEAL (L) NO. 877 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 349 OF 2001. Rajan Gangaram Vanmali, .. Appellant. Vs. Central Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. R.D. Bhat for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Cama, Sr. Adv., i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the respondents. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. : 2 Heard. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he could not file the appeal within time for reasons beyond control of the appellant who was required to go to Hyderabad to get treatment for his eye from L. V. Prasad Eye Institute and, therefore, after he was declared fit by the Institute he approached his advocate who expressed his inability so he was required to engage another advocate who took some time and ultimately the appeal came to be lodged on 21.11.2007 after delay of 244 days. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Court may consider the case of the appellant for condonation of delay sympathetically in the given facts and circumstances. 3. Mr. Cama, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that particulars and details have not been furnished as to what prevented the appellant for such a long time. The appellant has merely stated that he was required to go for eye treatment but he has not stated anything about the treatment, the hospitalisation period and so on. Taking into consideration that the appellant was required to undergo medical treatment and then find out a suitable advocate, in our view, this can be considered to be a good and sufficient reason to condone the delay, though 3 there is no specific period stated during which the appellant was immobilised by his eye ailment. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay. The notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). ( J. N. PATEL, J) (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)