1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12632 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 397 OF 2007 Mr. P.V.Mandlik,Sr.Counsel instructed by Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for applicant. Mr. M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. M.P.Kale, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. [ CORAM : P.R.BORKAR, J. ] DATE : 05/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. P.V.Mandlik, Sr. Counsel instructed by Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 474 days in filing review application for review of Judgment and Order passed by this Court on 12/2/2009 in Second Appeal No. 397 of 2007, whereby the Second Appeal was dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law is involved. 3. The present applicants are heirs of original appellant no. 1 Anna S/o Ahilaji Kolse and they explained the delay stating that Anna expired on 17/5/2008. The applicants – legal representatives were not 2 aware of the proceedings of Second Appeal. The Second Appeal No. 397 of 2007 came to be dismissed by this Court on 12/2/2009. Only after filing of the Darkhast, they learnt about the decision of the High Court and so filed review application. Consequently, they pray that delay may be condoned. 4. Mr. M.M. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the reply filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3. They stated that certain facts are suppressed in as much as Anna was not the only appellant. The respondent nos. 4 to 9 were also appellants. They were represented by the Advocate. It is not the case of the applicants anywhere that the Advocate did not properly represent their case. It is also stated that if the review is to be filed, it ought to have been filed by all the appellants and not by one of the appellant on the plea that the said appellant had expired. The main question is, whether case of the appellant was properly put before the Court and whether there is any manifest error in the order of the Court ? 5. Mr. M.M.Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 relied upon the ruling of this Court in “ Sbhobha Bajirao Damodar V/s Triratna Krida and Shikshan Prasaarak Mandal, Akola and others ” - 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. - 979 . In that case, this Court observed that, “ applicant seeking review have changed Advocate, when name of earlier Advocate still continues on record . 3 Nothing on record to justify change of Advocate. It should not be an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits and this tendency of litigants needs to be deprecated ”. 6. The reliance is also made on the ruling “ Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another V/s N.Raju Reddiar and another ” - AIR 1997 – Supreme Court – 1005. 7. In the present case, Anna S/o Ahilaji Kolse had expired. He was not the only appellant. The respondent nos. 4 to 9, who were members of his family were also the appellants. It is difficult to believe that Anna would have concealed such a long standing litigation regarding partition of family property from the members of his family. It is worth noting that the applicants are the only daughters, whereas son of Anna is made as respondent no. 8. 8. Not being satisfied with the bonafides and genuineness of the reasons, this application for condonation of delay of abnormally long period, is dismissed. Civil Application No. 12634 of 2009 does not survive in view of dismissal of the Second Appeal No. 397 of 2007. [ P.R.BORKAR ] JUDGE knp/C.A.12632.09 in S.A. 397.07