1. This application is filed for seeking condonation of delay of 1938 days in filing the first appeal.

2. This interim application was listed on 8 November 2023, 12 December 2023, 16 January 2024, 27 February 2024, 21 March 2024, 25 April 2024, 11 March 2025 and 25 March 2025.

3. The impugned order which is challenged in the appeal was passed on 27 July 2016 by City Civil Court at Mumbai. The appeal was required to be filed within 30 days. However, the appeal is filed on 18 December 2021. Therefore, according to the applicant, there is a delay of 1938 days in filing the appeal.

4. The reason for the delay of almost more than 6 years is explained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the interim application, which is reproduced hereinunder :-

                   “3. The Applicant states that after passing the Judgment and Decree dated 27 July 2016, Advocate for Applicant filed Application for Certified copy and received the same. The Applicant has been provided the Certified copy of the said Judgment and decree to the Applicant, after going through the Applicant requested the earlier Advocate to prepare Appeal. The Applicant submits that since the Applicant paralyzed from 2012, the Applicant failed to follow up with his earlier Advocate and Advocate has not taken any steps for filing of the Appeal. The Applicant states that the Applicant was not in position to move anywhere to do follow up with his Advocate and to give necessary instructions to his Advocate and therefore the Applicant was not able to file Appeal in time.

                   4. The Applicant states that as stated above after the impugned Judgment and order was passed the Applicants had approached his previous Advocate for taking further steps in the matter. The Applicant states that since his previous Advocate has not taken any steps without my instructions, he informed the Applicant that he would not be able to take further steps in the High Court, considering delay occurred in the matter. The Applicant thereafter approached his present Advocate who informed him that the said order was required to be challenged in this Hon'ble Court and limitation of which is only 30 days. The Applicant requested the present Advocate to take necessary steps to file Appeal and challenge the impugned order, as the Respondent No. 1 has filed Execution proceeding against the Appellant. The Applicant submits that since the Applicant was not able to communicate with his Advocate, he requested his son to take necessary steps and to do follow up with present Advocate to avoid further delay in the matter. The Applicants submits that due to financial issues and due to paralyzed body and old age difficulties Applicant was not in position to contact in time to the present Advocate, therefore, the Appeal could not be filed in within time. The Applicant further submits that due to paralytic body, old age and old age health problems the Applicant was not able to contact present Advocate in time as he was not able to travel due to health issues.”

5. I have heard Ms. Mule, learned counsel for the applicant.

6. At the outset, there is not a single document annexed to the application in support of the reasons stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 except making bald averments.

7. There is no advocate name with whom the applicant was in touch at the time when the order was received. Therefore, the contention that the applicant was in touch with his earlier advocate cannot be accepted. Similarly, in paragraph 4, there is a reference to new advocate. Again, there is no detail of such an advocate given nor any document is annexed in support thereof. Therefore, even this ground cannot be accepted.

8. One of the reasons is that the applicant had a paralytic attack in 2012. The impugned order is passed in 2016. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted.

9. In any case, there are no supporting documents annexed to the application and as to how after the order was passed, the applicant was not in a position to move. If in 2021, his son can pursue the proceedings for filing the appeal, then why he could not pursue in 2016, is not explained.

10. There is a reference to execution proceedings against the applicant, but on which date this execution application was filed is not mentioned. It has become a trend to frustrate the execution application proceedings by filing the appeal belatedly when successful decree holder takes steps to taste the fruits of the decree. Such a practice cannot be accepted and it would amount to giving premium to unsuccessful litigant and take the process of this Court to delay enjoyment of fruits of the decree by the successful litigant.

11. On a bare perusal of paragraphs 3 and 4, in my view, no sufficient cause is shown for this Court to exercise its discretion to condone the delay. I draw support from the recent 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).

12. In view of above, no case is made out for condoning the delay. Interim application is dismissed. Consequently, the first appeal also stands dismissed.