1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD R.A.No.64 of 2011 In FAST NO.4728/88 WITH R.A.NO.65 OF 2011 In FAST NO.5826/88 WITH R.A.NO.68 OF 2011 In FAST NO.6626/88 WITH R.A.NO.69 OF 2011 In FAST NO.4131/88 WITH R.A.NO.70 OF 2011 In FAST NO.4797/88 WITH R.A.NO.71 OF 2011 In FAST NO.4730/88 WITH R.A.NO.72 OF 2011 In FAST NO.4744/88 WITH R.A.NO.73 OF 2011 In FAST NO.4129/88 WITH R.A.NO.74 OF 2011 In FAST NO.6634/88 WITH R.A.NO.77 OF 2011 In FAST NO.4121/88 WITH R.A.NO.78 OF 2011 In FAST NO.4738/88 WITH R.A.NO.79 OF 2011 In FAST NO.4123/88. _______________________________________________________________ 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. 2 1. Heard. 2. These are Review Applications filed by the applicants seeking review of the order dated 4.6.2002, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : B.B.Vagyani,J.), thereby rejecting the applications for the condonation of delay of two (2) years and 64 days in filing the First Appeals. 3. Mr.Bhore, learned counsel contends that in absence of the applicants or his advocate the Court ought not to have rejected the applications on the merits but could have only rejected the applications in default. Even in absence of the advocate, the applications are rejected on the ground that delay is not properly explained. According to the learned counsel, the applicants are illiterate persons and are financially weak. The said ground should have been considered. The matter involves the right of the applicants to get enhanced compensation amount. The order passed rejecting the application for condonation of delay does not show that the grounds which 3 are enumerated in the applications for condonation of delay were dilated by the Court nor were considered. 4. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader submits that the said order rejecting the application for condonation of delay is of the year 2002. Moreover, the Court after going through the applications was satisfied that the sufficient reasons are not stated nor the grounds would come within the realm of the expression "sufficient cause". 5. No doubt, when the order was passed by this Court on 4.6.2002, rejecting the applications for condonation of delay, the advocate of the applicants was not present and the order was passed in absence of the advocate of the applicants. The Court has considered the dates of passing of award and filing of the Reference. Upon going through the applications, the Court came to a categorical conclusion that the delay is not properly explained and the Court refused to exercise its discretion. The jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining Review Applications U/s 4 114 of the C.P.C. is in a narrow compass. In four such similar matters, the learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the applicants had rejected the delay condonation applications by passing a detail speaking order. All these applications are in respect of acquisition of the land for the same project. The reasons stated in all the applications are similar. 6. In light of the above, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record. As such the Review Applications are rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.18.04.2011. asp/office/Ra64.11 5