IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.195 OF 2008 NO.195 OF 2008 NO.195 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2722 OF 2005 IN REVIEW PETITION (LODG.)NO. 38 OF 2005 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1849 OF 1983 M/s Chirag Enterprises ... Appellant Vs. The Trust worthy Popes & Tubes ... Respondents Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Yatin R. Shah for Appellant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & P.B. P.B. P.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ. MAJMUDAR, JJ. MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 6TH MAY, 2008 : 6TH MAY, 2008 : 6TH MAY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 24th April, 2007 refusing exercise of discretion in favour of the appellant to condone the delay in filing the Review Petition. The plain reading of the impugned order discloses that the learned Single Judge refused to condone the delay as no case was made out for condonation. 2 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant drawing our attention to the Affidavit- in-support of Notice of Motion which was taken before the learned Single Judge for condonation of delay submitted that the same explains the cause for the delay. 4. Perusal of the said Affidavit clearly discloses that the order which was sought to be reviewed was passed on 7th July, 2005. The Review Petition was not filed till 6th September, 2005. Undisputedly the period of limitation for filing the Review Petition is of 30 days. It was the case of the appellant that the delay was caused due to non supply of certified copy of order dated 7th July, 2005. However, on plain reading of Affidavit discloses that even the certified copy was applied for beyond the period of 30 days from the order passed on 7th July, 2005. The certified copy was applied only on 11th August, 2005 and was collected on 18th August, 2005 and thereafter the Review Petition was preferred on 6th September, 2005. There is absolutely no explanation in the Affidavit as to what prevented the appellant from obtaining the copy of the order within 30 days 3 i.e. prior to 5th August, 2005. 5. It is well settled law that for the purpose of filing the Review Petition, one does not require certified copy of the order and Review Petition can be filed on plain authenticated copy of the order. Admittedly, no such attempt was made by the appellant. 6. In the circumstances as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge on account of failure on the part of the appellant to disclose any cause for delay in filing the Review Petition, there was no case made out for exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant to condone the delay. Hence, we find no case made out for interference in the impugned order. The Appeal is therefore rejected. ( P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) (R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR,J.) (R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR,J.) (R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR,J.)