1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No.1943 of 2008 IN Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 16354 of 2007 IN Writ Petition No. 1497 of 2007 [Digambar Singh son of Kishorilal Vs. Union of India & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.K. Pathan, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. H.K. Kothari, Adv., holding for Mr. R.S. Sundaram, Adv., for respondents. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 21ST November,2008. This is an application for condonation of 11 days' delay in filing Misc. Civil Application St. No. 16354 of 2007. Heard. This Court is satisfied with the reasons assigned in the application. The delay is, therefore, condoned. Judge Judge |Hedau| 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 16354 of 2007 IN Writ Petition No. 1497 of 2007 [Digambar Singh son of Kishorilal Vs. Union of India & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.K. Pathan, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. H.K. Kothari, Adv., holding for Mr. R.S. Sundaram, Adv., for respondents. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 21ST November,2008. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. M.K. Pathan for the applicant and learned Adv. Mr. H.K. Kothari holding for Mr. R.S. Sundaram, Adv., for the respondents. 2. It is urged that the petitioner is taking exception to para 4 of the order passed by this Court on 16th August, 2007. Said para 4 reads as follows:- “4. We find that the reasons recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the explanation offered by petitioner towards delay on the part of petitioner is not satisfactory cannot be faulted as erroneous.” 3 3. The petitioner has reiterated the facts narrated in the Writ Petition while making the application. 4. The finding that this Court concurs with the finding of the Tribunal, who found that the explanation offered by the petitioner towards delay is not satisfactory, is not shown to be erroneous on the face of it. The petitioner is taking exception to the merit of the order passed by this Court. This is not a ground available and open for agitation. In the circumstances, Review Application has no merit. The Application is, therefore, rejected. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4