1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C. A. F. NO. 147 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 20175 OF 2008. Harishchandra Marotrao Karnake Vs. Ramdas Narayanrao Kshirsagar & Ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri M. A. Sable Adv. For appellant. Shri S. M. Ukey Adv for R-4. Shri Patil Adv for R1 to 3. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 30 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. Heard. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The appellant is the original non applicant No. 2 in Motor Accident Claim No. 79 of 2004 decided by the Tribunal at Wardha. The present appellant is the owner of the autorikshaw which met with an accident in which respondent No.1’s suffered injury and died. 2 Said petition was decided by Tribunal on 20.04.2006. The present appellant had filed a Written Statement before the said Tribunal but actually did not contested the application. It is the case of the appellant that he was ailing from 05.04.2006 to 05.04.2007 and later from 10.04.2007 to 20.11.2007. It is his contention that on 20.11.08 some employee of the Court had come to his house for recovery of amount and he came to know that award has been passed. It is his case that he had applied for certified copy and preferred the appeal. The contention of the appellant is that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within limitation. Application is opposed by both the contesting respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the appellant was ailing and the certificates filed along with the application would go to show that he was not in a position to file an appeal during the period 05.04.2006 3 to 20.11.2008. He submits that these certificates would show there was sufficient cause for appellant for not preferring the appeal in time. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submit that both the certificates filed would not show that appellant was prevented from moving about and was not in a position to file appeal. They submit that application and the certificates do not show that there was any sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within limitation. Delay in preferring the appeal is of 884 days. I have gone through the certificate dated 05.04.2007 which goes to show that the appellant was suffering from Colitis and Hyperacidity. This certificate dated 05.04.2007 does not go to show that appellant was ever advised any bed rest from this time. Colitis and Hyperacidity are not such kind of diseases which prevent a man from moving about and he is required to take bed rest. This certificate 4 therefore certainly does not go to show to that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from not filing the appeal in time. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that appellant was required to go for a surgery as can be seen from second certificate. It seems that in 2007 the appellant was admitted in the hospital, but he was discharged after three days and that certificate does not go to show that any bed rest was advised or the ailment was of such a serious nature that he was not able to move about. Even third certificate does not show that any bed rest was advised. Considering the nature of the ailment, it cannot be said that appellant was prevented from preferring the appeal within time. No other ground is made out by the appellant which can be said to be a sufficient cause for not filing an appeal. Law is well settled that the Court has a power to condone the delay of any length sufficient, if sufficient cause is shown but it cannot condone a day’s delay if there is 5 no sufficient cause. No sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay. In the circumstances I do not see any reason for not preferring the appeal in time. In the circumstances the application is dismissed. JUDGE svk