1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CAO No.1088/2010 in MCA St. No.158531/2010 in CA No. 3112/2007 in MCA ST. No. 5188/2007 (Rejected No.700/2007 in WP St. No.22787/2004 (Rejected No.14/2005) Smt. Pravatibai Mangal Khandekar and others Vs. Vidarbha Premier Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M. N. Potbhare, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd ,,. SEPTMBER, 2010. 1] Prayer is to codone delay of 1080 days in filing M.C. A. Stamp No. 15853/2010. This MCA is for restoration of Civil Application No.3112/2007 which in turn was for condonation of delay in filing rejected MCA No.700/2007. This rejected MCA sought restoration of rejected writ petition No.14/2005. The writ petition is challenging the order dated 8.9.2004 passed by Cooperative Appellate Court. The Cooperative Appellate Court in turn had rejected prayer to condone delay made by present applicants in approaching it. 2] Affidavit as filed shows that the applicants did not contact their earlier counsel and he could not remove objection and registration was therefore refused. It is thereafter alleged that the applicants contacted that counsel to inquire about 2 status of the writ petition and they learnt about rejection. The date on which they contacted, other details are not given. Why they did not contact the counsel earlier is not explained. They changed counsel and new counsel has filed MCA No.700/2007 along with application for condonation of delay. Therein the service was not being effected and ultimately this Court passed conditional order. The order was not complied with and therefore, Civil Application No. 3112/2007 and rejected MCA No.700/2007 were dismissed. The affidavit discloses that the applicants did not contact their counsel. The reason given “.. due to the unwarranted, the applicants are poor and ill-treated person and doing the business running the Auto for their livelihood and because of the paucity of fund, they did not approach very well to the counsel”. 3] It is further mentioned that on 10th August 2010 when they received communication in respect of auction the suit property, they contacted that Advocate and present proceedings are filed. 4] The reasons given are mostly of inaction or negligence on the part of the applicants and there is no explanation for the same. The applicants cannot expect of 3 Court to assist them whenever they find it proper to invoke its jurisdiction. Period of more than six years has expired after the Cooperative Appellate Court refused to condone the delay. Hence, I am not inclined to condone the delay as I do not find just and sufficient grounds. The applicants are also not acting bonafide in the matter. The application is therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Ambulkar.