1 C.A.6748.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6748 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1820 OF 2006 1. Dhondiram S/o Narsing Biradar, Age : 64 Years, Occup. Agril.., R/o Kavthala, Tq. Udgir, District Latur and others ...APPLICANTS. VERSUS 1. Ishwar S/o Baliram Hude, Age : 59 Years, Occup.: Agril., R/o Kavthala, Tq. Udgir, District Latur and others ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. N.V.Gaware, Advocate for Applicants. Shri. V.D.Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Shri. A.W.Kshirsagar,Advocate for Respondent Nos. 9 and 10. ... CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Application is filed for condonation of delay, caused in filing the review petition. There is delay of 268 days. Shri Gavare, learned counsel for the applicants submits that after passing the order of which 2 C.A.6748.11 review is sought, the petitioner had filed the petition before Apex Court. Time was sought for prosecuting the matter. The Apex Court summarily dismissed the SLP on 23.04.2007. The Tenancy proceeding ended by compromise, the petitioner was not within the knowledge about the document, such as compromise deed. He had obtained the said document in the month of November, 2007 and immediately thereafter, review petition is filed. The delay caused is not intentional, but bonafide one. 2. Shri Gunale, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that delay is not bonafide, no details or proper explanation is given regarding the delay of 268 days, when the applicants-petitioners got knowledge of the said document. In absence of detailed explanation, delay cannot be condoned. The learned Counsel further submits that the document i.e. compromise deed, which is referred above is already considered by the authorities. It is not the case of subsequently the facts having come to the knowledge of the applicants and submits that delay need not be condoned. The learned other counsel for respective respondents adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Gunale, learned counsel. 3. The factual matrix that, the order of which review was sought, was assailed before the Apex Court is not disputed. SLP was dismissed by the 3 C.A.6748.11 Apex Court on 23.04.2007, and present review petition is filed in the month of December, 2007. It is on record that certified copies of the document, which applicants got the knowledge subsequently were obtained in the month of November, 2007. 4. In the light of above, it cannot be said that delay caused is not explained. The merits of the review petition is not required to be considered, while considering the application for condonation of delay. In the light of above, application is allowed. The delay caused in filing Review Petition is condoned. The Civil Application is disposed of. . Review petition to be placed for admission as per request of both parties on 16.08.2011. Earlier statement to continue till then. Sd/- [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ] MTK 4 C.A.6748.11