- 1 - 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 CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.37 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.37 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.37 OF 2005 IN IN IN CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2005 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court’s Court’s or orders or directions Judge’s orders & Registrar’s orders. ............................................................. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : SEPTEMBER 2,2005 : SEPTEMBER 2,2005 : SEPTEMBER 2,2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. The application is opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent on the ground that there is no clear explanation for delay. In my view, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, delay deserves to be condoned. The loss which may be caused to the Respondent may be compensated in terms of money. Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs.1500/- to the Respondent. 2. Place the Review Application on board on 9th September 2005. - 2 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE