Mohan Natthu Bhalerao v. Pankaj Subhash Kasat And ANR

{1} 940 CA 15251 OF 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 940 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15251 OF 2016 IN FAST/19431/2016 MOHAN NATTHU BHALERAO

VERSUS

PANKAJ SUBHASH KASAT AND ANR ...

Advocate for Applicant :Shri Ajeet B. Kale Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri S.R.Bodade ...

CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.

DATE: 19th September, 2018 PER COURT:- Heard Shri A.B.Kale, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri S.R.Bodade, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Insurance Company.

Delay of 2248 days has occurred in filing the present appeal. The reasons for occurrence of delay are explained by the applicant/appellant in paragraph No.3 of the application, which reads thus:

"3.

The applicant in fact has also no any knowledge of legal proceedings and period of limitation for filing appeal. Also the enhanced of compensation which is granted by the lower Court is not yet received in time by the applicant. The applicants had not purposely delayed the matter but only because of non-availability of funds could not file First Appeal within time. The applicant have by obtaining some hand loan and by some other means have managed to bear

{2} 940 CA 15251 OF 2016 the expenses required to file the appeal and thereby filing this application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal the same may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice."

The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Insurance Company has opposed for condoning the delay stating that huge delay of more than six years has not been properly explained and therefore, prayed for not condoning the delay. On perusal of the explanation given in paragraph No.3 of his application, it is apparently revealed that the reasons, which are assigned by the applicant, cannot be held as cogent and sufÏcient to condone the huge delay. Law is well settled that the period of delay would not matter if it is sufÏciently explained, however, even if the delay is of smaller period and the reasons assigned are insufÏcient or unjustifiable, such delay cannot be condoned. The reasons assigned for condonation of delay are not sufÏciently explained. I am, therefore, not inclined to allow the application. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

I) Civil Application No.15251 of 2015 is rejected.

II) Consequently, First Appeal (Stamp) No.19431 of 2016 also stands dismissed.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE SPT