IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL MCC REVIEW PETITION NO. 1485 OF 2008 With CLMA Delay Condonation Application No. 8924 of 2008 In SECOND APPEAL NO. 1635 OF 2001 Sher Singh ……….Appellant. Versus Mangru Singh (deceased) through his legal LRs and Others. …….Respondents. None appears for the appellant / review applicants. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for respondents. 16th July, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the appellant/review applicants. The second appeal against which the review petition has been filed was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 22nd May, 2008. The appellant has also lost from both the courts below. Now, the review petition has been filed by the appellant / review applicants, belatedly after 184 days. As per law, the delay of each day has to be explained in the delay condonation application. However, no effort has been made by the appellant / review applicants to explain the delay caused in filing the review petition. Only bald averments have been made in paragraph 4 of the application stating that after dismissal of the second appeal, the review applicants again made efforts to persuade the other side to end the 2 dispute by way of compromise, which has caused delay. This is not a sufficient cause which can condone the delay. Therefore, the delay condonation application is dismissed. The Second appeal be consigned to records. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 16.7.2009 Rathour