IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.334 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.30654 OF 2009 Shri Rohitbhai J. Patel ...Applicant. v. Shri Subhashbhai H. Patel & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Rohan Cama i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. adv. For the Applicant. Mr. Jay Joshi i/by M/s.I.R.Joshi & Co., adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 9, 2010 P.C. 1 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against certain observations in the order dated 18th July, 2009 passed in notice of motion, Ex.2. Respondents, who are the plaintiffs have also filed an appeal against that order, therefore, no harm would be caused to the parties if the delay is condoned and both the appeals are heard together. Therefore, this application is allowed and delay condoned. A.O. Stamp No.30654/09 be registered and listed alongwith the A.O. Stamp No.10679/09. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.335 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO.30671 OF 2009 Shri Rohitbhai J. Patel & Ors. ...Applicants. v. Shri Subhashbhai H. Patel & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Rohan Cama i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. adv. For the Applicant. Mr. Jay Joshi i/by M/s.I.R.Joshi & Co., adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 9, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 Suit No.1718/08 was filed by the plaintiffs/respondent nos.1 and 2. They have also taken out notice of motion , Ex.2 therein the defendant nos.1 to 11, who are the applicants before this Court had taken objection about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. After hearing the parties, the trial Court passed an order dated 4.7.2009 holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction and thus, the objection was rejected. Thereafter the notice of motion was also heard and order was passed on 18.7.2009. As the prayer made by the plaintiffs for stay to the elections was rejected, election of the trust also continued and participated in that. - 2 - Thereafter, defendant nos.1 to 9 file an Appeal against the order on the point of jurisdiction alongwith this application for condonation of delay. Appeal against the order passed by the City Civil Court should have been filed within 30 days under Rule 15(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948. After excluding the period taken for supply of certified copy , there has been delay of 88 days in filing the appeal. It is contended that after the order dated 4.7.2009, defendants were busy initially in contesting the notice of motion and then in elections, etc. and, therefore, there was delay. Notice of motion as noted above was disposed off on 18.7.2009 and the elections were also held and completed in August, 2009. Defendants took about three months thereafter to file this Appeal From Order. I do not find any justifiable reasons to condone the delay, therefore, application for condonation of delay stands rejected. As the application for condonation of delay is rejected, A.O. Stamp No. 30671/09, Civil Application Stamp No.30675/09 also stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)