2701cao1232.10.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 1232 OF 2010 IN M.C.A. ST. NO. 14226/2010 IN C.R.A. NO. 111/2008 Western Coalfields Ltd.., Nagpur & another :: APPLICANTS -: Versus :- Chandraprakash Krishnalal Khare :: RESPONDENT ............................................................................................................................................................... Shri S. C. Mehadia, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Amit Khare, Advocate for the respondent. ............................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2011. P. C. : 1. This is an application for condonation of 220 days’ delay caused in filing an application for review of the judgment and order dated 10/12/2009 passed by this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 111 of 2008. 2. The applicants had filed C.R.A. No. 111 of 2008 challenging the order dated 19/9/2008 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur rejecting application (Exh.10) filed by the applicants under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The trial Court recorded the finding that the suit cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as there is specific plea in the plaint that the cause of action is continuous and perusal of the plaint shows that the cause of action is spelt out on the bundle of facts, 2701cao1232.10.odt 2/3 therefore recording of evidence is necessary for deciding the question of limitation. Against this order, C. R. A. No. 111 of 2008 was dismissed by judgment and order dated 10/12/2009 by this Court, holding that the question of limitation is mixed question of law and facts and no fault, therefore, can be found with a view taken by the trial Court. Against this, the applicants preferred Special Leave Petition No. 7695 of 2010 and it was dismissed by the Apex Court on 9/4/2010. Thereafter this review application is filed along with the application for condonation of delay on 12/8/2010. 3. In the application for condonation of delay, the reasons stated in para No.2 are as under.: “That the applicants thereafter forwarded the copy of all the documents to its holding company for its opinion, who in turn after consuming some time due to administrative reasons, asked the applicants to find out whether a review application can be filed in this situation. The applicants thereafter sought legal opinion, which was received by the applicants on 21.7.2010 and based on the said opinion the applicants processed the file for the purposes of taking the decision to file review application. The applicants being a central government undertaking requires some time to come to a conclusion and hence some time was consumed in taking the decision to file review application and hence there is delay of 220 days in filing the review application.” Notice was issued on this application by this Court on 16/11/2010. 4. Shri Khare, the learned Counsel appeared for the respondent and has filed reply opposing the application for condonation of delay. It is the submission made that the delay due to administrative reasons, cannot be condoned. He further submits that the period from 09/4/2010 to 12/8/2010 has not at all been explained. He has relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation, Mumbai Vs. S. Parekh and Co. & others reported in 2008(4) Mh. L. J.-816 and in the case 2701cao1232.10.odt 3/3 of Nivruti G. Ahire Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2007(5) Mh. L. J.-284. 5. On the question whether sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay depends upon the facts of each case and the satisfaction of the Court about its existence. The opinion may differ from case to case and judge to judge and no hard and fast rule can be laid down or followed in that respect. However, the criteria of sufficient cause is the same, whether it is individual public body or the Government. It is not a matter of right, but it is a matter of discretion of the Court to be exercised judiciously. In this case, the period spent from 9-4-2010 to 12-8-2010 has not at all been explained. The length of delay does not matter, but it is the explanation for not preferring review during the period for which condonation sought, is relevant. There is no case of sufficient cause made out. Hence, delay cannot be condoned. Merely because there is lapse on administrative side, without anything more, would not make out a case for condonation of delay. 6. Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for the applicants has also argued the matter on merits and insisted to decide it on merits. I have heard him on merits at length. However, on merits also I am not inclined to entertain the review application for the reasons that (i) this Court has held that no fault can be found with the view of the Trial Court that the question needs to be decided after recording of evidence, (ii) such view has not been disturbed in S.L.P., which is dismissed, and (iii) no prejudice is caused to the applicant, as the issue is required to be decided in routine course and the decision is not foreclosed. The ultimate effect of the order is that the point is required to be agitated after recording the evidence. Hence, no case is made out for review. The application is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE wwl