1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.784 OF 2011 IN APPEAL (L) NO.141 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1822 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1347 OF 2007 E.M.Brothers .. Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s Bonaventure Anthony Creado & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Gaurav Joshi i/by M.Dhruva & Partners for the Appellants. Mr.Mahendra Ghelani i/by Law Charter for the Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 20th June, 2011 P.C: 1. This notice of motion taken out by the appellants for condonation of 412 days' delay caused in filing the appeal. There are two reasons given for delay in filing the appeal. The first reason is that the lawyer they instructed to file the appeal promised to file the appeal, but did not file the appeal within the period of limitation. The second reason is that the Mushataq Abdullah Khatri who is one of the partners of the plaintiffs-appellants firm was unwell. 2. So far as the first reason is concerned, though according to the plaintiffs the lawyer did not file appeal for about a year, after discovering this the plaintiffs 2 have not even addressed a letter to the lawyer enquiring from him as to why, though promised, he has not filed the appeal. The lawyer is not even joined as a party to this notice of motion. The allegation, that the lawyer despite being instructed to file the appeal and despite the lawyer promising the plaintiffs that he will file the appeal, has not instituted the proceedings in the Court, is a serious allegation against the lawyer. In the absence of any letter addressed to the lawyer and in the absence of lawyer joined as a party, we cannot accept such allegation. 3. So far as second reason is concerned, even assuming that Mushataq was unwell, the record reveals that so far as institution of the suit is concerned, Mushataq has not played any part. The plaint is verified by some other partner Mr.Fateh Mohammed Abdulla Khatri. The affidavit has been filed in support of the notice of motion which was rejected. Therefore we find that there is some substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents that Mushataq is claiming that he was looking after the litigation only for the purpose of showing sufficient cause, in fact he was not looking after the litigation. We find that false excuses have been given for seeking condonation of delay. Notice of Motion is therefore rejected. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)