1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.O. NO. 630/2010 IN MCA ST. NO. 8389/2010 IN F.A. No. 137 /1989 (Kamalnain Madanlal Sharma VERSUS Surendra Narayandasji Jawandhiya & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.V. Deo, counsel for the applicant. Shri B.N. Mohta, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 26 , 2010 . Heard. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the delay in filing the review application is bona fide and needs to be condoned. It is stated in the civil application that the counsel for the applicant could not contact the applicant before he went to U.S.A in early March-2009. After return, the application for speaking to minutes could not be filed immediately as the applicant was ill. The application for speaking to minutes was filed on 12.10.2009 and was decided on 06.04.2010. The learned counsel for the non-applicant states that the reasons stated in the civil application for condonation of delay in filing the review application are not sufficient for condoning the delay in this case. The learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the medical certificate was not produced along with the civil application though it was stated in the application that the applicant was ill after the counsel for the applicant had returned from U.S.A. The learned counsel for the non-applicant relied on the decision reported 2 in 2008 AIHC 2761 to substantiate his submission that the explanation about the illness of the applicant was not credible. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the application and the reply filed thereto, it appears that the applicant has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the review application. It does not appear from a reading of the application and the reply filed thereto that the applicant had intentionally delayed the matter and had belatedly filing the application for review of the judgment. The judgment reported in 2008 AIHC 2761 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, more so because in the reported decision, the applicant had not made out any good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. For the reasons stated in the civil application, the delay in filing the review application is condoned subject to the payment of costs of Rupees One Thousand to the respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. The costs may be paid to the counsel for the respondent no.1, for and on behalf of the respondent, for the sake of convenience. The civil application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. JUDGE APTE