1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12193 OF 2008 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3217 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 14819 OF 1993 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 06.04.2010 Heard Mr. S.B. Bhosale, Advocate for the applicant, and Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for the State - respondent. 2. This is an application for review of the order passed by this Court on 13-08-2008 refusing to condone delay of 732 days in filing the appeal. 3. Advocate has referred to condonation of delay of 4278 days by this Court. However, that was a delay 2 which was filed in making application for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed for non removal of office objections, as per orders passed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial). At that time, it was stated that the Advocate ought to have removed the office objections but he failed and under the circumstances, delay was condoned. 4. However, the application for condonation of delay of 732 days was delay prior to the filing of the appeal. It was a delay between the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and filing of the appeal with delay condonation application. These are two altogether separate things. The delay in approaching Court with appeal has to be 3 explained by the client/litigant and not by the Advocate. Not being satisfied with reasons given, this Court has rejected the application on 13-08-2008. Learned Advocate referred to the case of Rafiq and another vs. Munshilal and another (AIR 1981 SC 1400), in which it is observed that where the appeal is dismissed for default of appellant's counsel, party should not suffer for misdemeanour or inaction on the part of counsel. In this case, I am not satisfied that it is the Advocate who has to be blamed. It is not say of the applicant that he had provided certified copies of judgment and award, expenses for filing appeal including court fee to the advocate within limitation but the advocate failed to file appeal in time. Mere blaming advocate behind his back 4 is unfair. Not being satisfied, this application for review is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/APR10/ca12193.08