1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION O. NO.670/2009 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.7572/2008 IN REG. M.C.A. NO.180/2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.411/2002 (D) Vikas s/o Vitthal Chandure and another ...Versus... Dadarao s/o Pundlikrao Shegokar --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order [Shri G.R. Sadar. Adv. for applicants] CORAM :- A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED :- 24.11.2009 By this civil application, the applicants pray for condonation of delay of two years and 199 days in order to file application for restoration of rejected Misc. Civil Application No.180/2006. It appears from the record that learned Advocate appearing for the applicants did not remove office objections and therefore, Registrar (Judicial) had granted two weeks' time to learned Advocate to call his clients and swear affidavit. But the office objections were not removed. It appears that the applicants had preferred Second Appeal No.411/2002 which came to be decided by this Court on 13.9.20005. The applicants had preferred review 2 application by filing Misc. Civil Application St. No.20151/2005 on 6.12.2005 in respect of which office objections were not removed within time. It is averred in the application that the applicants were making regular enquiry by telephonic communication with their Counsel, but they were not informed by their Counsel about dismissal of the review application for want of removal of office objections. Learned Advocate for the applicants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan...Versus...Krishnamurthy, reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3222 in support of his submissions. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that the words “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain...Versus...Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 and State of West Bengal...Versus...The Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749. It is also settled principle that each day's delay has to be satisfactorily explained. According to learned Advocate for the applicants the applicants were not aware about impugned order of dismissal of review application. They came to know about it on 17.4.2008, while certified 3 copy of dismissal order dated 7.4.2008 was received on 23.4.2008. Under these circumstances, I think interest of justice would be subserved, if delay is condoned. Hence, delay is condoned. Civil application is allowed subject to costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur within a period of one week from today. Costs shall be condition precedent. If the cost is not paid, the application shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court. JUDGE ssw