1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6361 OF 2008 Vasudeo alias Nanasaheb V. Mandke & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Ratanlal Makhanlal Bagadiya. ...Respondent. .... Mr.Parag Kale for the Petitioners. None for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. September 18, 2008. P.C. The Learned Principal District Judge, Pune has in the considered exercise of his discretion, condoned the delay in instituting the Review Application. The Respondent, as the facts which emerge from the record would show, bonafide pursued the remedy of a Civil Revision Application before this Court which was withdrawn with liberty to file a Writ Petition and thereafter, instituted a Writ Petition which was again withdrawn with liberty to file a review application before the District Court. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the Respondent was guilty of negligence or inaction in taking recourse 2 to his remedies. The order condoning the delay cannot, therefore, be faulted particularly in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala, (2007) 2 SCC 322. That is a case where no reasons whatsoever had been furnished for condoning delay. Such is not the case here. The Learned Principal District Judge has furnished cogent reasons for condoning the delay. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. ....