1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) No.7251/06. Wamanrao Kherde ..vs.. Narayan and others. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKARJ. DATE : 2nd June, 2008. 1. Heard Shri R.L.Khapre, Advocate for the applicant. None appears for the respondents. 2. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the review petition. By this review, the appellant seeks to challenge the order passed by this court on 7/2/2006. The present appellant has preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The said special leave petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 2587 (Kunhayammed and ors. ..vs.. State of Kerala and anr.) wherein it is held by their Lordships that where no special leave 2 is granted by the Supreme Court, there is no appeal to the Supreme Court as such and there is no question of merger of order of the High Court into that of the Supreme Court. In view of this, there is no doubt that review application is maintenable before this court. Therefore, Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the delay has occurred because of the fact that the petitioner had bonafide prosecuting the petition before the Supreme Court and therefore, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the delay needs to be condoned. In view of the fact that the petitioner was prosecuting the proceedings before the Supreme Court, it could be said that he had bonafide prosecuting the legal proceedings before the court. Therefore, the delay in preferring this review application stands condoned. List the matter for admission. JUDGE pzc