ORDER :

1. Aforesaid First Appeal is presented against judgment and order dated 30.1.2018 passed by learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 6 of 2016 and since there appears to be delay in preferring the same, present application is filed for seeking condonation of delay of 744 days as projected in the application and it appears from the record that on earlier point of time, very applicant has filed Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 for the purpose of condonation of delay of 127 days which had occurred in preferring F/First Appeal No. 22838 of 2018 in which explanation which was tendered was found to be not satisfactory and as such said application came to be disposed of vide order dated 31.1.2019, of-course with a liberty to applicant to prefer another application with relevant details and satisfactory explanation. Since said order is also relevant to the present controversy, certain observations contained in the said order read as under:

5. The only details/explanation which are mentioned by the Applicant in support of the request is found in paragraph 2 of the Application. The said paragraph 2 reads thus:

“It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order, the same was received by the department. That since the issues challenges decision of the authority and having retrospective effect on the dues and factor involved, the same had to be taken up at Legal Department and records and details were required to be called and deliberated. That upon synchronizing details, the same was given to the pleader, who had further called for details and particulars and records, moreso where there would be permanent effect on establishment and amount involved is huge, wherein time has taken and there is delay occurred, which is neither intentional, nor deliberate, more particularly in view of the in consequence attached the order, which will have a cascading effect over the city. It is respectfully submitted that in view of the aforesaid there is neither any willful, nor deliberate non-compliance of the orders and necessary approval had been sought, which came to be granted after collection of and synchronization and requisitions of the requests.”

6. The said averments and details do not offer satisfactory explanation. The relevant details namely; the date of the judgment, when the application for certified copy and record was submitted, when the record was received, when subsequent steps for filing appeal were taken, what steps were taken, etc. are not mentioned in the Application.

7. The averments in the Application do not make out sufficient cause. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the details mentioned by the Applicant.

8. Under the circumstances, present Application is dismissed with liberty, to the Applicant, to file another appropriate Application with relevant details and satisfactory explanation. Rule is discharged.

2. After disposal of the said application on 31.1.2019, it appears that present application is presented on 27.1.2022, but registration of the application took place on 31.1.2023, as is reflecting from the record, and in that process, it appears that 744 days delay has taken place at the instance of the applicant.

3. For the purpose of seeking such condonation, explanation which has been put forth in the application we deem it proper to quote hereunder:

“3. It is submitted that in the aforesaid proceedings, there was a delay of 127 days, wherein the Honourable Court 16.10.2018 in the allied Civil Application No. 1 of 2018. Copy of the said order is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-A. It is submitted that the said application was disposed with the liberty to file another application with particulars for the same by order dated 31.01.2019. Copy of the said order is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE B. It is respectfully submitted that the status of the matter at material time, reflects appeal pending. Copy of the status report is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE C.

4. It