1 (CAW3002/10 IN RPWST26626/10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3002 OF 2010 IN REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO.26626 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.496 OF 1993 Shri Popat Mahadeo Khole since deceased through legal heirs and representatives: a) Asha Popat Khole & Ors. ....Applicants. (Original Respondent Defendant-Tenant) v/s Champabai Janardan Gorad since deceased through her legal representative: a) Smt. Leena Balasaheb Chavhan and others ..... Respondents. (Original Petitioners- Plaintiffs-Landlords. Mr. V.G. Peshave for the applicants. Mr. V.S. Gokhale for Respondent Nos. 3(a) and 3(c). Mr. Mangesh Chavan for Respondent No.4. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 29th March, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition. There is delay of four years in filing this 2 (CAW3002/10 IN RPWST26626/10) application for review of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 496 of 1993. The father of the applicants was the original tenant. The suit was filed by the landlord for eviction. The suit was decreed in favour of the landlord. Against this order, defendant-tenant preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed and the order of eviction was set aside. Respondent/Landlord preferred a Writ Petition against the said order. Applicants were duly served. The Writ Petition was filed in the year 1993. By order dated 22/9/2006, the learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing the Petitioner, decided the Writ Petition on merits and allowed the Petition and set aside the order passed by the lower appellate court. Then the decree was executed. After execution proceedings were initiated, a review petition was filed by the original respondents seeking review of the order dated 22/9/2006 and in this review petition, Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay. 3. It is submitted in the delay application that the applicants – heirs of the original tenant used to make inquiries with their advocate regarding the status of the Writ Petition and the advocate, in turn, used to inform the applicants that the matter is still pending. According to learned advocate, he used to make inquiry with his clerk one Mr. Sandeep. According to the applicants, relying on the statements of his clerk, their advocate used to inform the applicants that the matter is still pending. It is submitted by 3 (CAW3002/10 IN RPWST26626/10) the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants that the litigants were diligent and on account of the misrepresentation made by the clerk of their advocate, applicants were not aware about the matter being listed on the final hearing board. It is submitted that, therefore, delay is caused in filing this review petition. It is submitted that the applicants may be heard on merits and the impugned order may be set aside. 4. In my view, sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicants for condonation of delay of four years in filing this review Petition. The explanation given by the applicants, in my view, also cannot be accepted. There is no material on record to indicate that the applicants had made inquiries with their advocate from 2006 to 2010. Apart from that, it is an admitted position that the cause lists of this court, both, Original and Appellate Side were displaced on inter-net since January, 2004 and it was possible for the litigants to find out from the website regarding status of their case. It is obvious that no efforts were taken by the applicants to find out independently about the status of their case from the website. Applicants therefore were callous in their attitude and not diligent in keeping a track of their case and they were clearly negligent in pursuing their case in the High Court. Applicants now, therefore, cannot be permitted to shift the blame for dismissal of their Writ Petition on merits on their advocate or the clerk of their advocate. Even 4 (CAW3002/10 IN RPWST26626/10) otherwise, review petition can be entertained only on the grounds which are available under Order 47 Rule 1. The ground which is put-forth by the applicants would not be available to them for filing review petition. 5. Application for condonation of delay in taking out the review Petition is rejected. Review Petition does not survive. 6. Notice issued to the clerk of the advocate stands discharged. 7. Applicants are at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings for the purpose of challenging the impugned order. 8. Interim order passed by this Court to continue for a period of six weeks. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 5 (CAW3002/10 IN RPWST26626/10)