1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1523 OF 2010 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST)NO.1892 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2005 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. Date : February 03, 2010 1. Heard Smt. P.V. Langhe, Advocate for the applicant. 2. The applicant-appellant seeks condonation of delay of 258 days in filing review application against the judgment delivered by this court on 8.4.2009 in Second Appeal No.683 of 2005 dismissing the same in limini as there was no substantial question of law involved, and there were concurrent findings of facts. 3. There is enormous delay of 258 days in making review application. It 2 is stated in the application for condonation of delay that the applicant was unable to move the court earlier because of his illness. The medical certificate produced is of spurious nature. We find overwriting in the date of the certificate, so also in the month from which rest was advised to the applicant by the doctor. The illness stated is anxiety neurosis and the M.B.B.S. doctor has certified the same. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant cited some cases. Firstly, she relied upon the case of Shivaji vs. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Kannad, 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 681 and she relied particularly on paragraphs 7 to 9 of the same. The second case referred to by the learned Advocate is Sonerao vs. Godawaribai 1999 (2) Mh.L.J. 272 and she relied upon paragraphs 8 to 13 thereof. The third case cited is Lilabai vs. Laxmibai 2003 (1) ALL MR 102 and learned Advocate referred to paragraph 11 therefrom. 3 5. No doubt, this court is always liberal in considering application for condonation of delay, particularly when the ground of illness is stated and found to be genuine. However, in the present case, the illness stated in the medical certificate raises serious doubt. Moreover, anxiety neurosis cannot be considered as sufficient ground. Delay is also enormous of 258 days. 6. I am not satisfied with the reasons given. Apart therefrom, the second appeal was dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law could be shown. Parties were litigating since the year 2000. It is also in the interest of justice that the litigation should end somewhere and should not be prolonged indefinitely. 7. In the circumstances, civil application is rejected. Date: 03/02/2010 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/ca1523.10