C. Rev. No. 90 of 2010 30.08.2010 Present: Mr. K.R. Kashyap, Advocate with Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Advocate, for the petitioners. CMP(M) No. 741 of 2010 The present application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been moved for condonation of delay in filing the review petition, seeking review of the judgment, dated 30.06.2010, of this Court, passed in RSA No. 434 of 2002, titled Shri Kishan Chand and others vs. Smt. Vidya Devi & another. The grounds set up for indulgence of this Court in condoning the delay, in filing the review petition, have been set up vide paras 2 and 3 of the application, which are to the following effect: “2. That the judgment was passed by the Hon'ble Court on 30.06.2010. The counsel of the applicants applied for the copy on 15.07.2010 and obtained the same on 24.07.2010. The counsel informed of the dismissal of the appeal only on 15.07.2010 and thereafter when the copy was ready hence there is a mistake of face and communication gape which may kindly be condoned as sufficient ground in filing the present review petition. -: 2 :- 3. That when the counsel informed the applicant on 15.07.2010, that the appeal has been dismissed and the copy has been applied and when the copy of the judgment will be ready they will be informed. The counsel informed the said copy to be ready on 7.8.2010 and on 9.8.2010 the applicant came to Shimla and took the file and copy of the judgment and after going to the contents of the same has filed the review petition without any delay as the applicant is one biswa less to his share, which could not be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The record reveals that the judgment dated 30.06.2010, which is sought to be reviewed, was passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. As per the aforesaid averments, contained in paras 2 and 3 of the application for condonation of delay, it is apparent that the fact with regard to passing of the judgment was duly conveyed by the learned counsel to the applicants/respondents on 15.07.2010. If it was so, it was incumbent upon them to have taken steps to file the review petition well within time. However, if they were lax in doing so, they do not deserve indulgence of this Court in condoning the delay. 3. The application is accordingly dismissed and the -: 3 :- prayer for condonation of delay in filing the review petition is declined. Consequently, the review petition shall also stand dismissed as barred by time. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 30th August, 2010 (virender)