1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR M.C.A. (Review) No.182 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.3637 of 2004 (Decided) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.S.A.Radke, Counsel for the Applicants. Mrs. Khade, A.G.P. for the Non-Applicants. CORAM : D.D.Sinha and A.B.Chaudhari, JJ. DATE : February 2, 2007. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Misc. Civil Application No. 182 of 2006 is for review of the order dt. 23.9.2005 whereby the Writ Petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the proceedings initiated before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application were hopelessly barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that so far as condonation of delay aspect is concerned, the Courts and Tribunals need to be more liberal in approach and as far as possible, the rights of the parties should be decided on merits. It is further contended that the order impugned may be re-called and the matter may be remanded back. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, 2 has supported the impugned order. In the instant case, the following facts are not in dispute : The petitioner was terminated from service vide order dt. 15.2.1974 and for the first time, filed Civil Suit in the year 1983 which was transferred to the Tribunal in the year 1992. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the petitioner for a period of nine years, after his dismissal from service, did not do anything. In that view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench in the impugned order, in our view, is just and proper, needs no interference. Hence, the review application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj