1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3368 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (LODG.) NO.521 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3534 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.3122 OF 2005 with NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3369 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (LODG.) NO.519 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3533 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.3121 OF 2005 with NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3370 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (LODG.) NO.523 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3535 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.3124 OF 2005 with NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3371 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (LODG.) NO.522 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3532 OF 2005 IN 2 SUIT NO.3123 OF 2005 Gautam Umakant Mhatre ..Appellants. Vs. M/s. United Corporation and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Farhan Dubhash i/b M/s. Mansukhalal Hiralal & Co. for the Appellants. Mr. J. Reis i/b M/s. Tamhane & Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr. N.P. Pandit, AGP for the State. .... CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 16th February, 2009. P.C. : 1. In a suit for specific performance the Learned Single Judge passed an ad interim order on 22nd November, 2005 which came to be confirmed and interim prayers made in Notice of Motion 3532 of 2005 were made absolute vide order dated 22nd June, 2007. Aggrieved from the said order the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal which is barred by time. These Notices of Motion have been taken out by the Appellants for condonation of 423 days delay in filing the appeals. These Notices of Motion are opposed by 3 the non Applicants. In the affidavit filed in support of the Notices of Motion it has been stated that in September 2007 the Appellant came to know about the injunction order passed against Defendants 4 and 6. Thereafter he met his counsel and the counsel informed that interim order was passed; where after he changed the counsel and then took steps for filing the present appeals. It is also stated that they are illiterate people and were not aware of the implications and procedures of the Court. This has resulted in delay which they have prayed to be condoned. The non Applicants opposed this application primarily on the ground that even the affidavit in support of these Notices of Motion is factually incorrect and false. In fact the order of injunction has been served by the Respondents in the appeal by registered post acknowledgment due much prior to September 2007 and in the rejoinder filed in these appeals it is admitted that the order was received sometime in July 2007. Besides this the Appellants have violated the order of the Court and the Court has issued notice returnable after six weeks in Contempt Petition 94 of 2008 to the Appellants in these Appeals. 4 2. Normally the Court would be inclined to condone the delay in filing an appeal provided some sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay and the application moved by the Appellants is bonafide. Beside the fact that both these essential ingredients are not satisfied in the present case, inasmuch as the application is based if not false but on incorrect averments and the conduct of the Appellants in violating the orders of the Court also disentitles them from equitable relief. 3. There is hardly any sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay. Learned counsel relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari (2008(6) Mh. L.J. 239). The Court had passed an interim order which ofcourse was contested by the present Appellants which was made absolute vide order dated 22nd June, 2007. It is expected of a litigant to be vigilant of his rights particularly in relation to the orders which adversely affect the rights of the parties. The Appellants took no 5 steps and thereafter made averments which are not factually correct. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the delay cannot be condoned by the Court. In the result, these Notices of Motion are dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.