1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLCIATION ® NO. 700/2010 IN C.A. NO. 326/2010 IN MCA (ST) NO.3437/2010 IN REJECTED MCA NO.77/2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 334/1997 (Ashok Gopichand Sawarkar vs., maroti Domaji Bhatt and another ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S A Marathe, Advocate for applicant Mr V.G.Wankhede Adv.for Respondent No.2 CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 17 th September, 2010. Heard. 2. By this Review Application, the applicant prayed for review of the order dated 17.6.2010 passed by this Court in C.A. No.326/2010 in MCA (st) No. 3437/2010 in Rej.MCA No.77/2010 in Second Appeal No. 334/1997. 3. After hearing the parties at length, this Court by a reasoned order found that there was no explanation much less authentic and cogent, to condone the delay caused in filing application for restoration of appeal. The application was, therefore, rejected. 4. According to learned Advocate, the counsel for appellant/applicant was busy in another court on 9.11.2009 and the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. He had requested for restoration of Second 2 Appeal but his request was rejected and he was directed to file application for restoration of Second Appeal. Accordingly, the appellant had filed, bearing Stamp No. 18009/2009. In that application, the appellant had joined legal heirs of respondent no.1 since he was deceased. After that application, office objection was raised which was required to be complied with. There were no specific orders to allow the bringing legal heirs on record. The applicant/appellant had therefore, filed MCA (St) No. 3437/2010 for restoration of the Second Appeal and for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. According to learned Advocate for the applicant there was an erroneous office objection regarding counting of delay. It is further submitted that the appellant had raised substantial question of law to be decided on merits in the Second Appeal. According to applicant the delay was not deliberate or intentional and, therefore,the order dated 17.6.2010 be reviewed in the interest of justice. 5. This prayer has been strongly objected by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 Haridas Bhatt. According to Mr V.G.Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent no.2, the application to review the order dated 17.6.2010 is not maintainable as there is neither an arithmetical mistake or typographical error so as to invoke jurisdiction for review of the order. An application for condonation of delay of 71 days was considered on merits in the light of the facts and circumstances and the 3 application was rejected after hearing the learned counsel for parties at length. 6. Heard rival submissions and after having perused the order dated 17.6.2010 this Court by a reasoned order observed that no authentic and cogent reason was made out for to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration of appeal. No good case is made out to recall of impugned order. Civil Application for review is rejected. JUDGE Sahare