1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5282/2009. M.S. Seeds Corporation Ltd. -: versus :- M/s. Enviornmental Engineering Enc. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 03, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri V.R. Mundra, learned counsel for respondent. Shri Jagtap, learned counsel points out that 1999 payment of Rs. 94,540/- could not be pointed out in Special Civil Suit No. 108/2001 and hence ignoring that payment, a decree for sum of Rs. 2,54,929/- came to be passed on 28.07.2004. He states that after realizing the error, an application for condonation of delay and for review was moved in Special Darkhast No.128/2004 and that application was sought to be withdrawn with leave to file appropriate application for review in Special Civil Suit itself. The application in Darkhast was registered as M.J.C.No.79/2007 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola and on 14.09.2009 that application for review was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter on 16.09.2009 an application was filed before the District Judge for review along with prayer 2 for condonation of delay and review of judgment and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 108/2001 was sought. He points out that by the impugned order dated 16.10.2009 that M.J.C. No. 143/2009 has been dismissed without looking into the continuous steps being taken by the petitioners to redress their grievance and ignoring the mandate of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Shri Mundra, learned counsel for respondent on the other hand states that the alleged payment is dated 21.07.1999 while the suit is decreed on 21.07.2004. In written statement there is no whisper about such payment and as such the decree dated 28.07.2004 cannot be interfered after lapse of so many years that too in review jurisdiction. He has invited attention to the impugned order as also to the application for condonation of delay in support of his contentions. Petitioner before this Court is a Public Corporation and it is pointing out that 5 years before filing of a suit amount of Rs. 94,540/- was already received by the present respondent. That payment has not been looked into while decreeing the Special Civil Suit filed by the respondent. In this situation, as facts show that after realizing the error, petitioners have made continuous efforts to point out said payment and to claim adjustment therefor, I am inclined to give petitioner one opportunity to show their entitlement to prove that payment. By order dated 15.12.2009 this Court has granted stay of coercive recovery, subject to petitioners depositing 50% of amount of Rs. 94,540/- with the Registry of this Court. The petitioner shall deposit that 50% amount /- 3 before the Executing Court within a period of six weeks from today and shall pay cost of Rs. 5000/- to the present respondent within said period. If the amount is so deposited and costs are so paid, the delay shall stand condoned and the District Court shall register review and decide it. Till that decision further proceedings in Special Darkhast No.128/2004 shall remain stayed. Petitioners are permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by them before this Court in terms of order dated 15.12.2009 so as to enable it to deposit the same before the trial Court as mentioned above. The impugned order dated 16.10.2009 passed on M.J.C.No.143/2009 is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.