:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2008 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 14742 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 136 OF 2005 Mrs. Supriya Chandrakant Karkare ..Applicant Vs. Smt. Meena Bhalchandra Kale since deceased by her legal representatives Shri Abhay Bhalchandra Kale and ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for applicant. Mr. Jaydeep S. Deo for respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. Reserved Reserved Reserved on : August 05, 2008. on : August 05, 2008. on : August 05, 2008. Pronounced Pronounced Pronounced on : on : on : September 02, 2008. September 02, 2008. September 02, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Anturkar the learned counsel for the applicant who has filed Review Petition under Stamp No. 14742 of 2008 but belatedly and hence this application for condonation of delay. As per the office note, the Review Petition is beyond time by 2 years and 241 days. The respondent has filed affidavit-in-reply and opposed this application. The :2: reason in support of the application mentioned is the illness of the applicant’s sister-in-law - Mrs.Shakuntala Deshpande. The respondent no.2 pointed out in his reply that Mrs. Deshpande was not living with the applicant or her husband and in fact she was living in her own matrimonial home at Kothrud. It has also been pointed out that Mrs. Deshpande had two more brothers than the applicant’s husband and, therefore, it is claimed that the frivolous reason has been furnished for condonation of delay. 2. Civil Revision Application No. 136 of 2005 was rejected summarily by me on 26/9/2005 by a reasoned order. The said order was challenged by filing SLP (Civil) No. 23849 of 2005 and it was dismissed on 2/12/2005 by the Supreme Court. Review Petition (C) No. 103 of 2006 was filed in the SLP which was also dismissed on 14/2/2006. Curative Petition No. 166 of 2007 filed by the applicant also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 31/1/2007. This Review Petition has been presented on or about 23/6/2008. Even from the date of dismissal of the Curative Petition on 31/1/2007, the Review Petition has been filed after about one year and five :3: months. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to the letter dated 11/6/2008 addressed by the applicant to the Registrar (Admn.J.), Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, stating that the Curative Petition was dismissed on 31/1/2008 and not on 31/1/2007. 3. Be that as it may, even from 31/1/2008 the Review Petition has not been filed in time and as noted earlier, the sole reason for the delay caused is claimed to be the sickness of sister-in-law. It must be noted that the Review Petition is not an original proceeding and, therefore, the considerations for condonation of delay arising from a lis from the lower court would be different than in a Review Petition, which is an application before the very same court. Such Review Petition can be filed even without obtaining a certified true copy of the order under review and, therefore, the decision in the case of Sainik Security vs. Sheelabai and ors. [(2008) 3 SCC 257], as relied upon by the applicant, does not apply to the facts of this case. The applicant is trying to prolong the execution of the order dated 6/9/2003 passed by the Executing Court allowing the Final :4: Decree Application No. 47 of 1984 thereby directing the allotment of applicant’s 1/3rd share on the basis of the report submitted by the Court Commissioner. Even otherwise when the applicant failed before the Apex Court in more than one proceedings arising from the order dated 26/9/2005 passed by this court, a Review Petition at this juncture and at such a belated stage cannot be entertained. 4. Hence, there is no case made out to condone the delay and the application is hereby rejected summarily. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)