1 K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2672 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO.8795 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3204 OF 1991 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Ms. Ranjana Todankar for applicant. Mr. Sham Walve i/b Mr.D.K.Ghaisas for respondent no.1. Ms. Ushajee Peri i/b Mr. Mihir Desai for respondent no.7. CORAM : K.K.TATED,J. DATE : 07/04/2011. PC: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 This application is preferred by the petitioner in Review Petition for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition for review the order dated 5th April, 2007 passed by this court (Coram: A.P.Deshpande,J.) in Writ Petition 3204 of 1991 along with connected matters. 2 3 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that the applicant was not party in Writ Petition No.3204 of 1991. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by consent on 5th April, 2007. 4 As per the order dated 5th April, 2007, the respondent-school prepared seniority list on 4th December, 2007. At that time, the applicant learnt about the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.3204 of 1991. 5 Thereafter, the applicant made representation before the concerned authority. Lastly, they filed Writ Petition No.4262 of 2008 on 18th March, 2008 challenging the seniority list prepared by respondent-school. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 3rd March, 2009 with a liberty to the applicant to take appropriate remedy. 6 Thereafter, the applicant filed present Review Petition on 3rd April, 2009 for review the order dated 5th April, 2007 3 in Writ Petition No.3204 of 1991. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that because of these facts the delay caused in preferring the present Review Petition. 7 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 7 vehemently opposed the present application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of these respondents submits that applicant was known regarding pending litigation and inspite of that he failed and neglected to take appropriate steps for joining him as a party in that litigation. 8 Both the learned counsel further submit that the applicant failed to disclose the sufficient cause for condonation of delay in preferring the Review Petition. Therefore, there is no substance in the present application and same to be dismissed. 9 One thing is clear that the applicant was not a party before this court in Writ 4 Petition No.3204 of 1991 which was disposed of by an order dated 5th April, 2007. Pursuant to the said order, respondents-school prepared seniority list dated 4th December, 2007, in which the applicant’s seniority affected and thereafter, applicant made representation before concerned authority. Applicant also filed Writ Petition No.4262 of 2008 in this court immediately on 18th March, 2008. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 3rd March, 2009 with a liberty to the applicant to take appropriate steps. 10 Therefore, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and the averments made in the civil application, applicant pointed out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that applicant was negligent in taking appropriate steps immediately when he learnt about the dispute pending 5 in this court particularly the Writ Petition No.3204 of 1991. 11 Considering these facts, delay in filing Review Petition (Stamp) No.8795 of 2009 is condoned. 12 Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. (K.K.TATED,J.)