1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. REVIEW APPLICATION No. 81 of 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION No. 313 of 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) No. 27194 of 2009 Baburao S/o Panchayya Swami, Age 89 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Murum, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1] The State of Maharasshtra Through the Collector, Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad. 2] The Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Medium Project, Division Osmanabad. .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri A.B. Kale, Advocate for applicant Shri P.P. More, A.G.P. for respondent / State CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :- Present review application is filed against the order passed by the learned Single 2 Judge of this Court dated 22nd March, 2010, rejecting the Civil Applications for condonation of delay in preferring the First Appeal against the Award passed by the reference Court. 2. There was a delay of about 878 days, in filing the First Appeal. This Court by speaking order dated 22nd March, 2010, has rejected the applications on the count that the Court is not satisfied with the reasons given for the condonation of an abnormal delay of 878 days. This Court had also taken into consideration, the submissions regarding financial position and the fact that earlier, they were advised filing cross objections in the appeals filed by the State, but as the appeals filed by the State were dismissed, the present applicants could not prefer cross objection, and as such, preferred an appeal along-with application for condonation of delay. 3. Shri A.B.Kale,learned counsel appearing for the applicants, strenuously urged that this Court while rejecting the application for condonation of delay has not given detail 3 reasoning and has not taken into consideration the grounds stated in the Civil Applications i.e. the fact that the applicants could not receive the amount under Award and because of financial problem they could not prefer the appeals. The factum of illness of the applicants have also not be considered. He relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of “Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others V. Gobardhan Sao and others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 1201” and contended that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to party. He further submitted that this is a financial matter, the applicant would not benefit by causing delay. He further submitted that if, the delay is condoned and the appeals are entertained the applicants are ready to waive the interest component. 4. This Court in review jurisdiction cannot sit as an appellate authority, over the finding given by the Coordinate Bench. The 4 learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Civil Application has opined that the delay of 878 days is an abnormal delay,he is not satisfied with the reasons given. The Court while dismissing the Civil Applications have considered the reasons given in the Civil Applications, and thereafter, has formed an objective opinion of not condoning the delay. The scope in review is limited, this Court cannot re-appreciate the reasons given while dismissing the Civil Applications. 5. In the light of the above, the review application is dismissed. However, with no orders as to cost. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM*81.10RA