1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application (O) No. 629/2009 in MCA (Review)St.No. 8686/09 in S.A.No. 604/2005 Naresh s/o Deorao Jadhao and another vs. Ganesh s/o Asarampant Khandebharad and others . Misc. Civil Application (Review) Stamp No. 8686/2009 in Second Appeal No. 604/2005. Naresh s/o Deorao Jadhao and another vs. Ganesh Asarampant Khandebharad and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. P.S. Wathore, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM : A.P.Lavande,J DATE : 04.09.2009 Civil Application No. 629/09 has been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of delay of 74 days in filing Review Application by which review of the order dated 24.2.2009 has been sought by the applicants. 2. The applicants were defendants 1 and 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 58/2000 filed by the respondent no.1 herein for demolition of illegal construction carried out by the applicants. The trial Court decreed the suit. The appeal preferred against the said Judgment was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. This Court 2` on 24.2.2009 dismissed the Second Appeal at admission stage after hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and respondent no.1. 3. The review application has been filed by the applicants on the ground that the applicants have filed an application for regularization in the year 1984 and, therefore, it is the case of the applicants that order dated 24.2.2009 deserves to be modified stating therein that the Government Authorities are free to accept regularization charges for the purpose of regularizing the encroachment over the suit property. It is pertinent to note that the suit filed by the respondent no.1 was for demolition of illegal construction and the suit was filed in the year 2000 and the appeal before the lower appellate Court was dismissed in the year 2004 and Second Appeal was dismissed in February, 2009. In any case, in a suit filed by the respondent no.1 the issue of regularization does not arise. The applicants, if so advised, could have availed the remedy of regularization at the relevant time and it is too late for the applicants to contend that the order dismissing the Second Appeal at admission stage has to be reviewed by permitting the applicants to seek regularization of the illegal construction. Therefore, no purpose would be served by condoning delay in filing the review application since the review application itself is misconceived. 3` 4. In view of the above, I find no merit in both the applications. Hence, the Civil Application no. 629/2009 and Misc. Civil Application Stamp No. 8686/2009 are dismissed. JUDGE patle