1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 185 OF 2010 IN REVIEW APPLN.(ST.) NO.28347 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 504 OF 1989 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. Date : February 16, 2010 1. Heard Shri P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel, instructed by Shri Amol Gandhi Advocate for the applicant. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 144 days in filing application for review of the judgment and order dated 24.6.2009 by which Second Appeal No.504 of 1989 was dismissed. 3. The ground for review is that the parties had already arrived at 2 compromise in the year 1991 in R.C.S. No.305 of 1991, but the said compromise could not be communicated to the Advocates representing the parties in the Second Appeal. As a result, the second appeal was argued by both sides on merits and was decided by this court on 24.6.2009. 4. In view of peculiar circumstances, this court by order dated 19.1.2010 passed in present civil application directed both the parties to explain the circumstances under which they concealed the compromise from the court and their Advocates till filing present application for condonation of delay in making review application. 5. Additional affidavit dated 15.2.2010 is filed by present applicant Madhukar Ganeshrao Jawale (original appellant in second appeal).Considering the contents in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit and particularly the language used therein, I am not satisfied that the applicant is coming with clean 3 hands and true position. 6. Not being satisfied that this is a case wherein discretion should be used by this court, application deserves to be rejected. Granting this application would mean allowing premium on the fraud committed by the parties on their Advocates, so also the court, by concealing compromise for as many as 17 years and after decision went against one of the parties, by approaching the court in review jurisdiction. 7. Hence, civil application seeking condonation of delay in filing review application rejected. Consequently, review application need not be registered. Date: 16/02/2010 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/ca185.10