1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.No.1402/2010 in M.C.A.St.No.19389/2010(Rev) in W.P. No. 4744/2009 (D) Ishwar Krishnarao Bhujade ..vs.. Govt. of India, Deptt. Of Central Public Works ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. R. Narnaware, Advocate for applicant Mr. R. S. Sundaram, Advocate for non applicant. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE AND P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 25 th MARCH, 2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing review application. Admittedly, the limitation prescribed for preferring a review application is 30 days The Court delivered the judgment in appeal on 21.06.2010 The period of limitation expired on 21.07.2010. No cause is ascribed as having arisen within the period of limitation, since it is the case of the applicant that it was on 28.10.2010 that he was informed of the order dated 21.06.2010. However, no reasons are given for the delay and there is not even an explanation why no information was given by his Advocate to the applicant. Mr.Narnaware, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that this was due to lack of communication. This submission also does not disclose why there was lack of communication and why the order was not communicated to the applicant or the manner in which it was communicated eventually. 2 The story is improbable and cannot be accepted. It seems that the time was allowed to run out without any diligence. In Pundlik Jalaram Patil (Dead) by LRs. ..vs.. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and anr.; (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 448, the Supreme Court in para 19 observed as under: 19. In Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujrat this Court observed (SCCp.497, para 6) “6. .....It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause.” (emphasis supplied)” In this view of the matter, we see no reason to condone the delay in filing the application for review. The application is, therefore, rejected and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE kahale