IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 515 OF 2010 SMT. JAIWANTI D. GHADI AND 8 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI MANOHAR B. GHADI AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Shri D. P. Bhise, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 13th July, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. This is Defendants Writ Petition arising from R.C.S. No.12/2009, it is directed against Order dated 14-8-2009 dismissing their application for condonation of delay, in filing a review application against Order dated 2-3-2009. We could proceed on the assumption that the Defendants did not appear before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mapusa(in charge of Pernem Court) on 26-2-2009 at 2.30 p.m. when the order for inspection by the bailiff was made. On the basis of the report submitted by the bailiff an order was subsequently made on 2-3-2009. The plaintiffs filed an application for contempt on 18-3-2009, alleging contempt by Defendants against Order dated 2-3-2009. Notice of this contempt application was received by the Defendants on 8-4-2009. The Defendants filed their reply along with an affidavit of Defendant No.2 on 6-5-2007. The application for review with application for condonation of delay came to be filed on 14-8-2009, about four months later. The learned trial Court has refused to accept, and in my view rightly, that the Defendants came to know of the said Order dated 2-3-2009 in the first week of August, 2009 when the present Advocate of the Defendants informed them about the same. It can be seen from the said reply of the Defendants filed on 6-5-2007 that the Defendants were very much aware of the said Order dated 2-3-2009. The said affidavit was explained to Defendant No.2 in konkani language as mentioned therein, and, therefore it is rather too late in the day to contend that the Defendants were illiterate, and did not know what was stated in the said affidavit filed on 6-5-2007. The Defendants had the benefit of legal advice when they filed the said reply to the application for contempt. By changing their Advocate the Defendants cannot get a fresh cause of action to file an application for review as sought to be done by them on 14-8-2009. Shri Bhise, learned Counsel on behalf of the Defendants has brought to my notice that the Vakalatnama of Advocate A. P. Braganza was squeezed in, in the roznama on 26-2-2009. Learned Counsel has also brought to my notice that when the suit was fixed on 17-6-2009 at 2.30 p.m., the suit was called out and the roznama written on 19-6-2009. These discrepancies cannot help the Defendants in any manner to support their application for condonation of delay. Nevertheless, the learned Principal District Judge is hereby required to look into the matter and take appropriate action against those concerned and responsible for the said discrepancies. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Copy of Order be sent to the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.