/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.26354 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1903 OF 2007 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1839 OF 2003 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1955 OF 1984 Shri. Manohar Ramchandra Joshi ..Petitioner V/s. Shri. Manilal Anandji Thakkar since deceased by his legal heir Shri.Viral Manik ...Respondent Shri.D.K. Ghaisas for Petitioner. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED :7th MARCH, 2008. P.C:- 1. This is a Review Petition for setting aside the order passed by this Court, dated 8th October, 2007 in Civil Application No.1903/2007. It is submitted that the said order was passed in the absence of petitioner herein. It is submitted that the said order may be set aside and the Civil Application No.1903/2007 may be restored. / 2 / 2. Petitioner herein is the original petitioner in Writ Petition No.1955/1984. This writ petition was decided on merits by the judgment and order passed by this Court by D.K. Deshmukh, J. on 19th June, 1997. Thereafter, the Petitioner herein filed a Civil Application No.1839/2003 seeking restoration of the Writ Petition and also filed the Civil application No.1903/2007 for condonation of delay. When the civil application was called out on 8th October, 2007, neither the Petitioner nor his counsel was present and, therefore, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the civil application. It is submitted that Review Petition could not be filed on time since the Petitioner was hospitalized. It is submitted that the Civil Application No.1903/2007 appeared on the board and by the time the Petitioner's advocate reached the Court, the matter was already disposed of and, therefore, the present Review Petition has been filed. It is prayed that delay for filing the present application for review may be condoned and the order dated 8th October, 2007 may be set aside and recalled. 3. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned / 3 / counsel for the Petitioner. The Writ Petition was dismissed in 1997 and no steps were taken by the Petitioner from 1997 till 2003 and, thereafter, when the civil application for restoration was placed on the board, on that day also neither the Petitioner nor his counsel was present. Even after the said order was passed, the Review Petition for restoration has been filed after almost one and half month i.e. on 19th November, 2007. No sufficient explanation has been given for the delay caused in filing this Review Petition. It is duty of the litigant to be diligent. In the present case, it is obvious that the Petitioner herein was not diligent and slept over his right for almost more than seven years after his Writ Petition was disposed of on merits. No case is, therefore, made out for setting aside the order dated 8th October, 2007. In any case since the Writ Petition was dismissed on merits, the Petitioner could either have filed an application for review of the judgment and order dated 19th June, 1997 or challenged the same by filing an SLP in the Apex Court. The Civil Application No.1903/2007 in any case was not maintainable. Under these circumstances even otherwise no useful purpose would be served in restoring the Civil Application. Hence, Review Petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. / 4 / . V.M. KANADE, J.