1 16 cao 178.11.doc srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 178 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO. 12398 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5081 OF 2003 Shri Sunil Balu Jawale .. Applicant Vs. M/s. Greater Bombay Milk Scheme & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Mohan B. Gawade i/b Ms. Rupali Desai for Applicant. Mr. A.D.Kango, AGP for the respondents. CORAM: K.K.TATED, J. DATE: 24TH JUNE, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This civil application is preferred by Applicant-original Respondent for condonation of 841 days delay in preferring the 2 16 cao 178.11.doc Review Petition against the order dated 10th December, 2008 passed by this court (Coram: Dr. D.Y. Chandrahud, J.) in Writ Petition No. 5081 of 2003. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Applicant submits that without Applicant s knowledge and consent, his previous ’ advocate made the statement before this court for withdrawing the Complaint filed by him being Complaint (ULP) No.349 of 1998. He submits that in the month of April, 2011, the Applicant contacted his previous advocate to know the progress of the Writ Petition no.5081 of 2003. But his previous advocate not co-operated to inform about the progress of the matter. Therefore, he made enquiry in the office of this court with the assistance of Clerk and at that time he learnt that the writ Petition no.5081 of 2003 disposed of on 10th December, 2008. He immediately obtained copy of the order and filed Review Petition on 29th April, 2011. He submits that there is a delay of 841 days in preferring Review Petition for want of knowledge about the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.5081 of 2003. 3 16 cao 178.11.doc 4. On the other hand, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondents filed affidavit in reply dated 22nd June, 2011 and vehemently opposed the present application. The learned AGP submits that the Applicant failed to point out sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay of 841 days. He submits that the Applicant made allegations against his previous advocate for making statement against him in the present civil application. He submits that for want of sufficient cause there is no substance in the present civil application and same to be dismissed with costs. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Applicant and the averments made in civil application, I find that Applicant made out sufficient cause for delay of 841 days in preferring Review Petition. Therefore, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Prayer clause (a) reads as under: (a) “ the delay of 841 days in filing the present Review Petition may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice; ” 4 16 cao 178.11.doc 6. Applicant to pay costs of Rs.1,500/- to the respondent within two weeks from today as a condition precedent. 7. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. (K.K. TATED, J.)