IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion No. 390 of 2004 In Review Petition No. 6 of 2004 In Writ Petition No. 1479 of 2002 Parag Bakul Mehta .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents And Parag Bakul Mehta .. Applicant. Mr. A.G. Damle i/b. Mr. J.P. Singh for the Petitioner. Mr. P.M. Mokashi, AGP. for the Respondent-State. (In Chamber : At 2:35 pm.) CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & D.B. BHOSALE, JJ. D.B. BHOSALE, JJ. D.B. BHOSALE, JJ. DATED : 30.11.2004. DATED : 30.11.2004. DATED : 30.11.2004. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. By this Notice of Motion, the Petitioner is seeking the condonation of delay of more than a year. We have even perused the original Review Petition, wherein in paragraph 3, the Petitioner has clearly stated that the Petitioner’s father came to know of the order dated 31.7.2002, passed by this Court with regard to which Review is sought, which was furnished to his father on 4.8.2002, therefore, the Petitioner was very much aware of the said order on 4.8.2002. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also concedes that the Petitioner was aware of the order from 4.8.2002. The reasons set out in the affidavit in support for condonation of delay are not bonafide and genuine. No ( 2 ) sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion to condone the delay in the above matter. The Notice of Motion is devoid of merits, the same stands dismissed. (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)