1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2418 OF 2008 IN REVIEW PETITION LD. NO.36 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.313 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1489 OF 2006 Sheela Anant Chavan & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Manohar S. Chavan & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. Atul G. Damle for the Petitioners. Mr. S.A. Dhamade for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. September 18, 2008. P.C. The Notice of Motion has been taken out for condonation of delay of 114 days in filing the Review Petition. The only ground which has been urged in the affidavit in support is contained in paragraph 1 which reads as follows: “1. I say that the Petitioners approach the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay pursuant to order dated 7th February 2008 in the meetings before the Court Receiver, for the first time realized that in para 6 of the order A.C. 2 shed and two rooms are not included. The Petitioner written letter dated 19th June 2008 to the Court Receiver for including shed and two rooms but advised that the Petitioner may require filing present petition for modification.” The affidavit does not disclose sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The review Petitioners were parties to the proceedings and cannot be heard to say that they realized for the first time in meetings before the Receiver that in the order of this Court, the A.C. shed and two rooms were not included. Even after February 2008, it was only on 19th June 2008 that a letter was addressed to the Court Receiver. The affidavit in support was sworn on 8th July 2008. Thus, no ground for condoning the delay has been made out. The delay cannot be condoned. The Notice of Motion is accordingly dismissed. ......