1. This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 3 years and 60 days in filing the first appeal challenging the decree, judgment and order dated 8 January 2018 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Summary Suit No.1467 of 2017 whereby the original defendants were directed to pay Rs.15,25,000/- to plaintiff alongwith interest @ 18 % on principal amount of Rs.10 lakhs.

2. Appeal was required to be filed within 30 days under Section 15 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 i.e. on or before 8 February 2018. Even if the date of obtaining certified copy is considered, appeal was required to be filed on or before 16 May 2018. Appeal has been filed on 8 April 2021, thereby resulting in the delay of around close to 3 years.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon paragraph 15 onwards of its application for explaining the “sufficient cause” in filing the appeal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant.

5. Paragraph 15 to 24 deals with medical condition of one Mrs. Priya Somani who according to the applicant is the director of the company. These paragraphs i. e. 15 to 24 is for the period 2015-2016. There is reference to winding up petition filed before this Court which was disposed of in 2013. In my view, the period covered by these paragraphs are much prior to the date of impugned order which was passed in January 2018 and therefore no cognizance can be taken of these paragraphs for considering whether there was “sufficient cause” for filing appeal in 2018.

6. Paragraph 26 and 27 deals with the income tax proceedings. It is important to note that by these paragraphs it is evident that in 2017 and 2019, the applicant pursued their remedies under the Income Tax Act for challenging the garnishee notice and orders were passed by the Appellate Tribunal in their favour. The order of the tribunal which was in favour of the applicant was passed in November 2019 whereas the impugned order was passed in January 2018. If the applicant can pursue and challenge the income tax proceedings in 2017/2019 then I fail to understand and further there is no reason given as to why the appeal which was to be filed against the order of City Civil Court in 2018 could not have been filed within the limitation provided or within at least reasonable period thereafter. There is no explanation to that effect.

7. It is important to note that the advocate informed the applicant about the impugned order of the City Civil Court as stated by the applicant in paragraph 28. Therefore, the applicant was well aware that the impugned order is against them and had to be challenged but they did not challenge.

8. There is nothing stated in the application for the period January 2018 till March 2019 during which limitation was in operation and has expired. In the absence of any explanation during this period the applicant has admittedly not shown any “sufficient cause” for this Court to exercise the discretion to condone delay.

9. From paragraph 30 onwards medical reasons of both the directors have been given. However, the medical reason given from paragraph 30 onwards is for the period post March 2019 by which the period of limitation had already expired much much before the said date and as observed above there is no explanation for the period 2018 up to March 2019.

10. There is no explanation stated from September 2019 till March 2021 in the application for delay. In paragraph 40 applicant has relied upon COVID 19 Pandemic. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that reason of COVID Pandemic cannot be taken in cases where limitation period had already expired prior to March 2020. Therefore, the period from March 2020 cannot be considered for explaining the delay on account of COVID.

11. In paragraph 41, the applicants have stated that they have received summons for execution of decree on 21 January 2021 and it is at that point of time that the applicants decided to challenge the said order by filing the present appeal on 8 April 2021. In my view, this course of action to challenge the original decree when a successful decree holder tries to implement the decree in his favour is nothing but tactics adopted by a litigant to frustrate the successful decree holders efforts for recovery. Such course of action in the absence of any sufficient cause for delay should not be encouraged by the Court because it gives a wrong signal to a successful litigant who has obtained the decree but cannot see the fruits of decree.

12. A query was raised by the Court as to whether there is any material on record to show that from 2018 the business of the applicant has stopped. Learned counsel for the applicant has brought to my notice paragraph 3 of the application which states that applicant/company is not having having any business in any part of India. This statement has to be read on the date when application is filed and not for the period 2018-2021.This application was filed in the year 2021. There is nothing on record to show that from January 2018 the company had stopped its business. Furthermore if the applicant can successfully pursue the Income-Tax proceedings in the year 2017 and 2019 then I fail to understand why the present appeal could also not have been filed.

13. In my view, no sufficient cause is shown for not complying with the limitation period provided to file appeal as more particularly set out above. I draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors.(2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has exhaustively dealt with the phrase “sufficient cause”.

14. In view of all the above reasons, Interim Application for delay is dismissed. Consequently, First Appeal also stands dismissed and Interim Application for stay of the impugned order does not survive.