1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 1013 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.: OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.: 1172 OF 2005 *** Namdeo S/o Govind Gadekar Versus Kondabai W/o Dattatraya Bedre and another *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. Relationship amongst the parties is not in dispute. Respondent No.2, according to contention of the Petitioner, is his second wife and Respondent No.1 is his daughter. Both of them had filed suit for partition. The suit is decreed by the trial Court. Said decree was challenged before the first Appellate Court by the Petitioner by filing appeal. Said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the first appeal, filed second appeal No.1172 of 2005 in this High Court. Said second appeal was dismissed by this Court after hearing both the parties. Said order of dismissal of second appeal is sought to be reviewed by the present petitioner. For such exercise, delay around 62 days is 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. occurred. Ground raised is paucity of funds for filing review application and/ or proceeding. Mr. Warad, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that efforts of the Respondents to seek partition and possession of their share in the suit property has been defeated till today even though second appeal is dismissed by this Court. Review and application for condonation of delay is an attempt to protract the matter since the Petitioner is in possession of the properties. He, therefore, opposed condonation of delay. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued on merits of the review petition. This is not an occasion for this Court to consider these submissions. 5. I have considered the ground for condonation of delay i.e. paucity of funds. Learned counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner is in possession of the property. In my view condonation of delay can be considered favourably subject to payment of Rs.2,000/-, to be paid by the present petitioner, within two weeks. 6. Civil application accordingly is allowed. Delay of 62 days stands condoned subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- [Rupees two 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. thousand only], to be deposited in this Court within two weeks from today. On deposit, at the request of learned counsel Mr. Warad, respondents are permitted to withdraw the said amount from this Court. 7. Rule made absolute in above terms. 8. List the Review Petition for admission after three weeks. [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:01/07/2010. ans/1013