1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD R.A.No.75 of 2011 In FAST NO.5822/88 WITH R.A.NO.76 OF 2011 In CA NO.297/92 WITH R.A.NO.67 OF 2011 In FAST NO.5824/88 WITH R.A.NO.66 OF 2011 In FAST NO.6628/88 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.K.S.Bhore, advocate for the applicants. Mr.S.N.Kendre, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 18.04.2011. 1. Heard. 2. These are applications seeking review of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : P.R.Borkar,J.), rejecting the applications for condonation of delay. Mr.Bhore, learned counsel states that this Court has not considered the grounds stated in the 2 application for condonation of delay in its correct perspective and thereby has rejected the applications. The Courts ought to have taken into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in a case of "N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy" reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123. Mere length of delay can not be the ground for rejection of the applications. According to the learned counsel, sufficient cause was stated i.e. the poverty and illiteracy of the applicants. 3. Per contra, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader resisted the application contending that this Court while rejecting the applications for condonation of delay has passed a speaking order, taking into account all the grounds enumerated. 4. The scope of this Court in entertaining a review petition U/s 114 of the C.P.C. is in a narrow compass. The review jurisdiction can only be invoked in a case of error apparent on the face of record. The review jurisdiction can not be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction. 5. Perusal of the order, it is manifest that the 3 learned Single Judge of this Court while rejecting the said applications has taken into consideration the grounds stated and has come to the conclusion that they do not come within the ambit of the expression "sufficient cause". There is no error apparent on the face of record. As such the Review Applications are rejected. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.18.04.2011. asp/office/Ra75.11 4