Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member. Adv. Prabhawalkar is present for appellant. Adv. Vikas Mishra is present for the respondent. He files Vakalatnama and Memo of address. He states that the appellant deposited only `5,00,000 and rest of the amount is not deposited. Adv. Prabhawalkar for the appellant said that stay is not in operation. This appeal bearing no. 1069/2010 has been filed by Mr. Ketan Bhai Jobalia and ors. against the order passed in Consumer Complaint No. 555/2008 by the District Consumer Forum, Thane on 03/10/2009. By the said order Original O.Ps. have been directed to give possession of Flat no. 702, 7th floor, in Shri Giri Residency,Mira Road (W) or to pay sum of `18,50,000 as per market rate with 9% interest. Forum below also directed to pay `10,000 as a compensation for mental agony and `5,000 as costs. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellant has filed this appeal. There is delay of 300 days in filing this appeal. To seek delay condonation, appellant filed condonation delay application No. MA-584/2010. This application is filed on 06/10/2010 and affidavit in support of delay condonation application filed on 27/09/2010. In fact we are of the view that when application for condonation of delay is filed on 06/10/2010 then affidavit in support of the said application should be sworn on the same date. But in the said affidavit, appellant sworn before the Registrar of this Commission on 27/09/2010. This is somehow very strange. Moreover, in affidavit dated 27/09/2010 it has been mentioned in Para no. 3 that “I say that the Appellant have made out of strong prima facie case for grant of reliefs as prayed for them in the Review application. I say that the applicants have a very good case and greater chances of succeeding in the above numbered Review Application”. This affidavit is filed in support of stay application. However Adv. Prabhawalkar said that he had filed another affidavit dated 11/10/2010. In this affidavit the grounds not raised by the appellant in earlier affidavit have been added. We are of the strong view that at the time of filing delay condonation application only one affidavit should be filed that too of the same date. On perusal of additional affidavit huge delay of 270 days and is sought to be explained. In fact and circumstances which we are of the considered view. We do not find that there is no sufficient ground to condone the delay and the appellant is also not sure about the actual delay. In the circumstances, we are finding that there is no merit in the delay condonation application as also in the appeal. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER 1. MA No. 584/2010 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. Consequently appeal does not survive for consideration. 3. No order as to cost. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. | 
