IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 324 OF 2008 IN STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 1047 OF 2008 JOHN FERNANDES AND 12 ORS., ... Applicants Versus M/S. BABU SITARAM NAIK THROUGH PARTNER ADITYA RAMA KERKAR AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Kalshawkar, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Coram:- S.A. BOBDE & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 18th June, 2008 P.C. Heard. It seems that the party applying for review was not aware of the order dated 07.11.2007. Mr. Dessai learned Senior counsel for the non-applicant submitted that in fact the copy was served on the Advocate. Order III Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code is amended by this Court. It is true that under the said Rule, an application for review is deemed to be a proceeding in a suit and therefore, the authority of the Advocate to act is liable to continue till the review is decided. It is, however, clear that the Advocate had returned the application for review and had refused to be served on behalf of the party. It is thus, clear that the party did not have knowledge that the application was being moved for further orders. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate in the interest of justice, to condone the delay, subject to payment of costs in the sum of Rs.2500/-, payable to the non-applicant. Delay condoned. Application disposed off. S.A. BOBDE, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. lh/.