IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVILAPPLICATION NO. 3155 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2795 2009 Acquino Arks & Farms & Anr. .. APPLICANTS Vs. Citizen Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare a/w Mr. Samsher Garud & Ms. Manisha Paranjpe i/b M/s. Khaitan & Jayakar for the petitioners Mr. Suneet Moholkar i/b Gabrial Pillai for R-1 Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for R-2 to 4 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 7/1/2010 P.C. In this review petition, the applicants have sought review of our order dated 10/9/09. According to the applicants there is 59 days delay in filing the review petition. According to the office there is 166 days delay in filing the review petition. 2. In the civil application praying for condonation of delay it is submitted that the 2nd applicant was suffering from brain related disease since June, 2009 and requires frequent hospitalization. It is further stated that he was incapable of instructing his advocate and the order dated 10/9/09 was passed without the applicants being represented. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has not disputed that the copy of the petition was served on the applicants. Affidavit of service is on record. Therefore, the only thing which needs to be ascertained is whether the applicants’ case that the 2nd applicant was at the relevant time incapable of instructing his counsel is acceptable. Case of the applicants is that the 2nd applicant is suffering from Cardio Vascular Insufficiency and high Diabetes. Discharge card of Holy Family Hospital annexed to the application mentions the date of admission as 15/5/09. However, date of discharge is not mentioned. There is another Discharge Card of the same hospital where date of admission is mentioned as 13/6/09 and date of discharge is mentioned as 18/6/09. Certificate dated 4/12/09 merely states that the 2nd applicant is suffering from Diabetes and Cardio Vascular Insufficiency and is being treated for the same from June, 2009. The order of which review is sought is dated 10/9/09. There is no dispute about the fact that the applicants were served with the copy of the petition. There is nothing on record to establish that on 10/9/09 the 2nd applicant was admitted in the hospital. There is, therefore, no reason why he should not have made arrangement to engage a lawyer. Admittedly the 2nd applicant’s wife is a partner in the 1st applicant along with 2nd applicant. The applicants should have at least found out what order was passed on the writ petition and should have moved this court for review within time, if they so desired. There is no acceptable explanation for delay in approaching this court and on that ground itself the application needs to be dismissed. 4. Besides even on merits the applicants have no case. Award was passed by the Cooperative Court on 22/10/02 in favour of the petitioners. Citizen Credit Coop. Bank Ltd., and against the applicants in the sum of Rs. 79,65,367-95. On 13/1/03 Recovery Certificate came to be issued pursuant to which the petitioners initiated execution proceedings. On 12/2/05, the Tahsildar Karjat issued notice to pay the outstanding amount within 30 days. The applicants did not pay the amount. Sale notice was issued and sale of the property was fixed on 18/8/08. The applicants filed writ petition challenging the sale. The First Court directed the applicants to deposit Rs.10 lacs with the petitioners within two weeks from the date of the order i.e. from 14/8/08. The applicants did not deposit the amount and hence that petition was dismissed. Taking into consideration all the relevant facts this court disposed of the petition on 10/9/09 directing the Collector Raigad to go ahead with the auction. We are informed that auction has already taken place and the 2nd applicant was present at the time of auction. In our opinion, the applicant has not made out any case for review of our order dated 10/9/09. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Lakhan v. Presiding Officer & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 161 where the appellant had made an application for recall of the order passed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gave opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the appellant because it was contended that the advocate for the appellant could not remain present in the court when the order was passed due to certain unavoidable circumstances. After hearing the counsel the Supreme Court rejected the application for recall of the order. 6. In our opinion, this judgment does not help the applicants. Whether order should be reviewed or not would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, we have already noted that there is no valid reason for the applicants not to remain present in the court when the writ petition was heard. In any case, in the interest of justice, we have also considered the merits of the case again and, we feel that no case for review of our order dated 10/9/09 is made out. Besides auction has already taken place. 7. In the circumstances, we reject the application. Needless to say that the review petition also stands dismissed. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)