1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.983 OF 2007 AND STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) 2871 OF 2007. AND STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) 2874 OF 2007. AND STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) 2873 OF 2007. SHRI JAGADEV R.PANGAM (DEC.) THROUGH LR'S ..... Applicants. Versus SHRI SHIVANAND V. SALGAONKAR AND 10 ORS. .... Respondents. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, with Mr. G. Nagvekar, Advocates for the applicants. Coram :- R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. Date : - 18th March, 2008. P.C. : 1. Heard the Advocate for the applicants. This an application for condonation of delay of 1564 days in filing the application for bringing the L.R's of deceased respondent No.7 on record. Only ground which is disclosed for the condonation of delay is that the appellants were not aware that they had to inform their Advocate about the fact of death of the respondent No.7. Apart from the fact that the ignorance of law is no excuse, even the record of this Court revealed that solemn 2 affirmation on the part of the appellants that this factum of death was not brought to the notice of the Advocate appears to be far from the truth. The farad entry in respect of first appeal No.172/2003 dated 18th October, 2003 clearly reads thus; “The notices of respondent Nos. 7 & 8 are returned back with the report of the Bailiff of Bicholim Court that; a) Respondent No.7 : Expired. b) Respondent No.8 : Not found residing in the said house.” Further entry dated 4.12.2004 in the farad of the said appeal reads thus; “Notified vide notice No.J/5241/2004 dated 4/12/2004 to take steps to serve respondent No.8 and to bring L.R's of respondent No.7 on record.” Further entry dated 20th June, 2007 read thus; “ Despite notice No.J/5241/2004, dated 4.12.2004 under Chapter VII para 6 of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960, no action has been taken to bring L.R's of respondent No.7 on record. Hence, the matter placed on Board of Learned Registrar.” The farad entries in relation to the proceeding before the learned Registrar of this Court in the said appeal reads thus; Order “ Heard Shri Nagvekar, learned advocate for the applicant/s. Office objections are not complied with. 3 S.O. two weeks.” Sd/- (A.D.Salkar) Registrar Date :- 29.6.2007. Order “ Heard Shri G. Nagvekar, learned advocate for the applicants. He has requested for time of four weeks. S.O. four weeks.” Sd/- (A.D.Salkar) Registrar Date :- 19.7.2007. Order “ Heard Shri G. Nagvekar, learned advocate holding for Advocate S.R.Rivankar for the appellants. He prays for three weeks' time to take steps. S.O. three weeks.” Sd/- Date : 16.8.2007 (B.K.Thaly) I/c Registrar “ 12.9.2007 Till date steps not taken to bring L.Rs of respondent No.7.” Order “ Heard Shri G. Nagvekar, learned advocate holding for Advocate S.R.Rivankar for the appellants. He prays for two weeks' time to take steps. S.O. two weeks.” Sd/- Date : 13.9.2007 (B.K.Thaly) I/c Registrar 4 Order “ Heard Shri G. Nagvekar, learned advocate holding for Advocate S.R.Rivankar for the appellants. He prays for one weeks' time to clear office objection. S.O. one week.” Sd/- Date : 4.10.2007 (B.K.Thaly) I/c Registrar “ 8/1/2008 M.C.A. 983/2007 for condonation of delay in bringing L.R's on record of respondent No.7 is annexed to the file.” 2. As the record stands, it is apparent that the applicants and their Advocate were made aware about the death of the respondent No.7 and need to bring the L.R's of the respondent No.7 on record by notice No.J/5241/2004 dated 4.12.2004. Thereafter, on number of occasions the matter came before the Registrar for removal of the said objection and time was sought by the Advocate for the appellants to take steps to bring the L.R;s of the respondent No.1 and the applications were filed only on 26.10.2007 in that regard. Apparently, therefore, the statement made by the applicants in their applications para. No.3 that “due to ignorance the appellant did not inform this fact to his Lawyer”, is patently a false statement. The appellant's Lawyer were fully aware of the death of the respondent No.7 since December 2004 onwards. Being so, neither there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 1564 days in filing the application for the alleged cause is really caused nor it 5 is a true state of affairs. 3. Being so, while dismissing the applications it is necessary to dismiss the same with exemplary costs. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the Court within a period of 4 weeks and the amount thereof shall be credited to the account of Legal Aid Services. The applications,accordingly, stand dismissed. R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. SMA