1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No. 3278 of 2008 Rajashri Ravindrakumar Tiknayat Vs. State Bank of india & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri B. N. Mohta Adv. for applicant. Smt. Ramani Patro Adv. for R-1. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 6 th October, 2008. This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge Senior Division. The respondent No.1 has instituted a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,68,400/-. Respondent No.2 is a partnership firm of which present appellant and respondent No.3 were partners. The suit was instituted against the firm as well as all partners including present appellant as well 2 as respondent No.3. The suit was contested by the present appellant and the respondent by filing civil suit. Court passed decree against the appellant as well as respondents 2 and 3 i.e. all the defendants in the suit. The decree came to be passed on 23.11.2004. This appeal has been filed on 28.03.08. There is therefore a a delay of 1131 days in preferring an appeal and the appellants i.e. original defendants 3 and 4 now seek that the delay in preferring appeal be condoned. The contention of the appellants is that the respondent No.3 Sureshkumar was managing firm and appellants were sleeping partners and were not knowing anything about the business. It is further contended that respondent Sureshkumar died in the year 2006 after the decree was passed. Appellants content that they came to know of the decree having been passed against all defendants only when the decree was sought to be executed against them. On this ground the delay in preferring the appeal should be condoned. Application is opposed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It is the contention of the respondent No.1 that all the defendants including the present appellant had contested the suit 3 by filing written statement. They were very much knowing that such a suit has been filed and decree has been passed. There is no explanation of delay in the application. Delay is of more than 4 years and it is not explained and therefore application should be rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicants submits that the suit in fact was contested only by deceased respondent No.3 i.e. Sureshkumar who was solely managing the firm. He submits that therefore appellants were not at all knowing that the decree has been passed against them. The contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Present appellants were very much party to the suit. They had filed their written statement. They cannot now claim ignorance that they were not aware that decree was passed and that only respondent No.3 was taking care of the suit. It may be mentioned that appellants/applicants in para 11 of the application have contended that applicants had absolutely no knowledge of the pendency of the suit till 13.01.08 which statement is apparently false since it is not disputed that the present appellants had filed 4 a written statement in the suit. Appellant has therefore made a wrong statement on oath before the Court. Decree is of a very large amount, it cannot therefore be said that appellants can take such passing of the decree so lightly and claim ignorance about decree having been passed against them. After having heard the learned counsel I find that delay has not been explained. Application for condonation of delay is thus rejected. JUDGE svk