1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.6850 of 2009 In SA No.610 of 2003. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. These are the applications for condonation of delay and Review of the order rendered by this Court in S.A.No.465/2003 on 25.10.2007. 3. Mr.V.S.Pawar, learned advocate holding for Mr.E.S.Murge, advocate for the applicant would submit that the delay is unintentional. He submits that the learned advocate appearing for the applicant had not informed the order in question and, therefore, the applicant was unaware. He submits that in the month of April 2009, the applicant came to know about the dismissal of the Second Appeal when he inquired with the advocate. Consequently, he urged for condonation of the delay. 4. One can not be oblivious of the ordinary course of human conduct, it is difficult to believe that the applicant was unaware of the dismissal of the Second Appeal till somewhere in April 2009. The applicant is not supported by advocate of the applicant who represented him in the Second Appeal. It is difficult to believe that for about more than quarter past two years, the applicant made no inquiry with the advocate. The ground stated in the application is insufficient, unacceptable and unreliable. Hence, the delay condonation application deserves dismissal. 5. So far as merits of the Review Application are concerned, it may be said that the Review Application is filed by another advocate. It is well settled that ordinarily the Review Application is required to be moved by the same advocate. The grounds stated in the Review Application are not worth the name. The grounds shown in the application pertain to the same arguments which were reflected from the appeal memo. No substantial reason appears to consider the Review Application too. Hence, both the applications are dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.11.12.2009. asp/office/Ca6850.09