1 CA 138/2011 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 138 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (STANO) NO. 902 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. S.P. Dighe i/b Mr. Sandeep K. Shinde for the applicants. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 14TH JUNE 2011 P.C. : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing of Civil Revision Application. The delay is very substantial of 2 years 2 months and 16 days. In my view, the delay is not satisfactorily explained. It is alleged that the plaintiffs (respondents) had assured to withdraw the suit realising that the suit was not maintainable and, therefore, the revision 2 CA 138/2011 applicants (defendants) did not pursue the remedy of filing of a revision application against the rejection of their application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The very fact that the plaintiffs were contesting the application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code itself belies the contention of the revision applicants that the plaintiffs had agreed to withdraw the suit. It is then alleged that the applicants were not advised properly which prevented them from filing of a revision application. No details as to whom the applicants were consulting, when was the consultation made, what was the advice given are mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. Only vague averments are made that they were not properly advised. On such vague averments, the delay cannot be condoned. The civil application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)