IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (O) No. 775/2010 in M.C.A. St. No. 10651/2010 in SECOND APPEAL NO. 386/2008 (Smt. Sitabai Kakaji Kapnichor thr L.Rs and ors - Vs. -Nagrik Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd and ors ) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri A.V.Muley, counsel for applicant Smt. A.P.Shinde, counsel for respondent No. 1 ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 29th NOVEMBER, 2010. This is an application for condonation of 23 days delay caused in filing application for review. The reason for seeking condonation of delay is that, after the judgment was delivered on 3rd March, 2010, the certified copy was applied on 8.4.2010. It was received on 21.4.2010 and hence the application for review has been filed on 26.4.2010. Although the reply has been filed to the application for condonation of delay, these facts are not disputed. The reason stated in the reply is that, it is not clear from the certified copy as to when it was ready. It is further stated that the applicant cannot raise a plea that he was not aware of the concluding part of the judgment delivered by this Court and hence, there is no explanation given for condonation of delay. After going through the application and the reply filed by the respondent, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Hence, delay caused in filing review application is condoned. Application stands disposed of. M.C.A. St. No. 10651/10 This application is for review of the judgment and order dated 3.3.2010 passed by this Court in Second Appeal NO. 386/2008. The applicant seeks review of the judgment and order passed by this Court, more particularly the observations made in the last part of the judgment, which is reproduced below. “However, it is made clear that it shall be open for the parties to institute the proceedings for claiming ownership of the property along with consequential benefits and none of the observations made by the Courts below, regarding ownership of suit property, shall come in the way of the parties in the proceedings, if any, are instituted. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid observations made by this Court would not give license to the appellants in second appeal to file and prosecute the suit and proceedings if they are otherwise barred by law. The observations made by this Court reproduced above are clear and does not call for any interference for review. JUDGE Rvjalit