1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1976 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST.)NO. 15865 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7073 OF 2009 Mr. Antonio B. D’souza. ... Petitioner/Applicant. V/s. Mr. Arun Keshav Joshi. ... Respondent. Mr. Ram Apte, Sr. Counsel with Mr. M.S. Lagu for the Petitioner. Mr. V.Z. Kankaria for the Respondents. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 09th OCTOBER 2009. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the Respondents. Perused the application, reply affidavit and the rejoinder. 2. It is stated in the application that the delay has occurred on account of the fact that the Petitioner/Applicant had filed the Writ Petition in this Court which came to be disposed off on 11th February 2008. However, one Criminal Revision Application was filed in this Court challenging the Judgment and Order of the Sessions Judge, Alibag. The Applicant has referred to the proceedings in the Revision Application, its dismissal for default and subsequent restoration. He has also 2 referred to the fact that the Application came to be placed before a learned Single Judge of this Court and the proceedings could not be decided on account of the fact that the Collector who had impounded a document did not pass any final orders but informed the Registrar General of this Court that the original documents could not be traced. He submits that under the order of this Court in the main Writ Petition, the Suit was directed to be expeditiously heard but could not be heard on account of the documents having been impounded. It is submitted that the Collector has not given any final verdict. Ultimately, finding that the matter was not proceeding even before the Trial Court that he has decided to approach this Court. He submits that an application under Section 9-A in the Suit of C.P.C. which was made in the Suit came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 25th April 2009 and that is how the instant application was delayed. 3. Although, there is substance in the contention of Mr. Kankaria that there is no explanation at all for the delay and that the proceedings before the Court at Alibag and this Court in Criminal matters do not have any nexus or connection with the subject of the Review Application, yet, in the larger interest of justice and considering that both parties are senior citizens and to enable them to have an adjudication of the Review Application on merits, since it is pending from July 2009, the delay is condoned but subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.2,500/- to be paid by the Petitioner as a condition precedent for condonation of delay within two weeks 3 from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. If costs are paid, let Review Application be listed on 9th November 2009 for admission. If the costs are not tendered, the Review Application to stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)