1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1811/2009 (Shirinbai Neterwala Foundation & anr. Vs. Narendra B. Bhat) with Writ Petition No. 1858/2009 (Shirinbai Neterwala Foundation & anr. Vs. Sanjaykumar D. Chaudhari) with Writ Petition No. 1691/2009 (Shirinbai Neterwala Foundation & anr. Vs. Miss. Jumma Sheel) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. H.N. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 30 , 2009 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the impugned order dated 30/1/2009, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the review application for reviewing the judgment and decree dated 16/4/2003. It appears that though there was a considerable delay in filing the review application, it is stated in the application for condonation of delay that there is delay of about 1½ months only. On the other hand, it is wrongly stated in the application for condonation of delay that the error which was apparent on the record, came to the knowledge of the petitioners on 22/8/2008, when the same had been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the counsel for the petitioners was asked to produce a copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by which the S.L.P. was dismissed to see whether there was any liberty granted to the petitioners to file the review application or 2 whether such observations were made by the Supreme Court, it is informed to this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the S.L.P. was dismissed without making any such observations. In fact, in para 2 of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners have tried to state as to what transpired in the Supreme Court when the matter was finally argued, though there is nothing to that effect in the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition. In fact, these submissions ought not have been mentioned by the petitioners in para 2 of the application, specially when the observations of the Supreme Court were not recorded in black and white. Since the petitioners had stated in the application that the delay was only of 1½ month, the trial Court rejected the application for condonation of delay. The judgment reported in 2005 (3) SCC 752 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, specially when it appears to this Court that in the earlier round of litigation, the trial Court had merely directed the payment of arrears of salary to the respondents, but without interest. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 30/1/2009, specially in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP