3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3698 OF 2009 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 6758 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 29.08.2009 1. Heard Adv. Shri V.V. Ingale for the applicant. This is an application for condonation of delay of 494 days in filing Civil Revision Application. It is stated in the application that the revision is directed against dismissal of L.A.R. No. 278 of 2004 (Old No. 354/1994), by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, by order dated 17.08.2007, for want of any evidence on the part of the claimant/petitioner. In para 3 of the application it is stated that the applicant could not file Revision within limitation due to unavoidable circumstances and it was not intentional. He was not aware of the order passed by the learned Court on 17.08.2007 and he got knowledge on 3 17.02.2009 and immediately applied for certified copy. It is also stated that the applicant was suffering from financial difficulties and he had to collect money etc. In the first place this application is filed on 24.03.2009. It is abundantly clear that the L.A.R. was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, for ten years and thereafter it was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in 2004. It is not that the applicant was not aware of the transfer. In- fact, he had engaged advocate. It is not explained, why from 2004 onwards the applicant has not contacted his advocate. 2. I am not satisfied with the reasons given for the delay of 492 days. The learned advocate for the applicant cited case of Kawadu s/o. Madhav Bansod V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2994 (1) ALL MR 651. In that case it appears that there was some evidence on record and the Court felt that on the evidence that was placed on record, the judgment could have been 3 delivered. It is not that in the present case the Civil Judge has dismissed the L.A.R. for default. It is for want of evidence on record to show that market value of the property was less than what was offered by the Collector. 3. Not being satisfied with the reasons given in the application, the Civil Application is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/ca3698.09