1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2009 IN C.R.A. (ST.)NO. 27859 OF 2009 TATA MILLS .. Applicants. V/s. Tata Housing Development Co.Ltd. .. Respondents. --- Mr.Kuldeep U. Nikam i/by Khaitan & Jayaker for the Applicants. Mr.Dinesh Kadam i/by J.Shekhar &Co.for Respondents. --- CORAM: K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 03RD FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Civil Application is preferred by the original defendants for condonation of delay of 41 days in filing the civil revision application against the judgment and order dated 25th June, 2009 passed by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small 2 Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal bearing No.202/2005, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 06th August, 2004 passed in T.E.& R. Suit No. 1/1 of 2001. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that in the last week of September, 2009 they engaged a new Advocate for filing the present revision revision application and therefore, there was delay in preferring the present application. Not only that, the applicants further submit that as no one appeared in the trial court on behalf of them they took some time to collect the documents pertaining to the present case and therefore, there is delay in preferring this civil revision application in this court. 3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents vehemently opposed the civil application for condonation of delay on the ground that the applicant failed to explain the delay of 41 days and he filed affidavit in reply dated 3rd January, 2010 to oppose the 3 present civil application. 4. I have gone through the affidavit in reply, interalia, the respondent contended that the applicant has failed to explain 41 days properly as contemplated under the provisions of the Limitation Act. He further submitted that the applicant had filed another revision application no. 699/2009 which involved very much similar facts and issue and there was no case of any delay in filing the said revision application even though both the orders of the Appellate Court are dated 25th June, 2009. 5. It is clear from para-5 of the civil application that in the last week of September, 2009, the applicant had engaged a new Advocate and therefore, there was delay on their part for preferring the present civil revision application. The explanation given by the applicants in para-5 justified the delay of 41 days. In the present 4 facts, the civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) on payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- to the respondents within two weeks from today. Payment of costs is a condition precedent. Prayer clause (a) reads thus : (a)That this Hon ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the above mentioned civil revision application dated 10.11.2009. (K. K. TATED,J.) -----