ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5791 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5791 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5791 OF 2008 Shamsher Kaur & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Dr.D.M.Dhawan & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Kunal Bhanage for the Petitioners. Shri A.S.Khandeparkar i/by M/s. Khandeparkar & Associates for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 07th October, 2008. : 07th October, 2008. : 07th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioners- Original Defendants have challenged the impugned order whereby, the learned Judge of Small Causes at Mumbai, rejected their Application of Condonation of Delay in filing the Revision against the Trial Court order dated 3rd September, 2002. The delay is of 1941 days. 2. After hearing and considering the material placed on record, I see there is no sufficient cause made out by the Petitioner to condone the delay. The reason that earlier advocate did not bring their notice seriousness expressed by the Hon’ble High Court as observed while disposing of the Writ bearing No.3817 ( 2 ) of 2007 that "the order of Trial Court deciding issue of jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiffs has attained finality as the said order was not challenged". The Petitioner, thereafter filed an Application on 24th December, 2007 for obtaining certified copy of the same order dated 03/09/2002 and after receipt of the same on 4th January, 2008, preferred a Revision on 10th January, 2008. There are various proceedings initiated after the order of 2002. They never challenged the said order at the earliest point of time, knowing fully the effect of said observations even if any. As there is no sufficient reason made out except noted above, and as the issue of jurisdiction has attained finality, the reason now to file such Revision by putting blame on the deceased Advocate, cannot be said to be a sufficient reason as this application is not bonafide and genuine. The whole intention appears to protract the matter. Therefore, taking all this into account, I see, there is no case is made out by the Petitioner to interfere with the said order. 3. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( 3 ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)