1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.79 OF 2008 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.4893 OF 2008 Dr. Bomi H. Battiwala ..Applicant V/s A.H.Tobaccowala & ors ..Respondents Applicant-in-person present Mr.Sanjay Kothari with Mr.Avinash Joshi i/b.M/s.Mulla & Mulla, Advocate, for the respondent No.1 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 9TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . By the above Civil Application, the applicant prays for condonation of delay of 13 years, 9 months and 20 days in filing the Review Application seeking review of the Order dated 31st March, 1994 passed in Appeal from Order No.374 of 1994. 2 2. The applicant pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court by the said Order dated 31st March, 1994 has filed OOCJ Suit No.1358 of 1994 challenging his termination from Voltas Limited and claiming damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000,00/-. The said suit is yet pending. After filing the said suit, the applicant has filed Review Application (ST) No.4893 of 2008 seeking review of the said Order dated 31st March, 1994. The said review is sought on the ground that since no progress has been made in the said suit. Filing of the said suit by the applicant serves no purpose. Since there is a delay in filing the Review Application, the instant Civil Application for condonation of delay has been filed. 3. The ground cited by the applicant for seeking condonation of delay is mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the above Civil Application. The sum and substance of the ground is that the applicant after reading Law Books realized that the order passed by the Appellate Court had errors in law and irregularities with respect to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the applicant was unaware of the said irregularities and fraud that the said order came to be 3 passed. Save and except the said ground, no other ground is urged for condonation of delay. In my view, the said ground urged is totally untenable. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the applicant had filed the said suit through an advocate and had also moved a Notice of Motion seeking stay of the respondents withdrawing the fringe benefits of service i.e. the quarters, car etc. of the applicant. The said Notice of Motion came to be rejected on 3rd August, 1994 against which the applicant had filed an appeal being Appeal No.777 of 1994. The said appeal was also dismissed on 26th June, 1996. In the light of the said facts, it cannot be said that the applicant was unaware of the legal position or was not having any legal advise at his command. 4. It would be pertinent to note that the applicant is also PHD in Engineering and therefore, the ground urged by him for condonation of delay in paragraph 3 is unacceptable. The applicant has therefore not shown any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. 4 (R.M.SAVANT, J.)