-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Review Petition (L) No.51 of 2006 In Notice of Motion No.1791 of 2006 In Review Petition No.6 of 1998 In Appeal No.519 of 1986 In Writ Petition No.1763 of 1981 Mahendra Prasad Tiwari. .. .. Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. .. .. Respondents Mr.Holmagi for petitioner. Ms.M. Kajle, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Raju Moray with Mr.V.S.Khemka and Mr.V.V.Khemka for respondent Nos.4 to 6. ----- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 21st December 2006 DATED : 21st December 2006 DATED : 21st December 2006 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Review Petition seeks to recall the order that we have passed on 5th October 2006, whereby we dismissed Notice of Motion No.1791 of 2006 taken out by the petitioner for condoning delay in filing an earlier Review Petition bearing No.6 of 1998. Review Petition No.6 of 1998 sought to recall the order passed by another Division Bench in Appeal No.519 of 1986 on 17th March 1991. -2- This Review Petition No.6 of 1998 came to be dismissed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master on 18th November 1997 for not removing the objections. The Prothonotary had passed a conditional order under Rule 986 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules. A letter was sent to the petitioner on 21st November 1997 informing about that order. The petitioner did not take any steps and that is how the order became final after the expiry of the period, within which the objections were to be removed. The Review Petition has been given the number as 6 of 1998 in view of the rejection of the Petition for the sake of record. Thereafter a Notice of Motion bearing No.1791 of 2006 was taken out for condoning the delay in removing the objections so that the Review Petition could be restored. It is this Motion which has come to be disposed of by our order dated 5th October 2006 since the petitioner failed to explain the delay. 3. We have noted that the petitioner followed up the main Writ Petition and then the Appeal diligently until he filed the Review Petition which was filed way back in September 1992. Thereafter he did not take any steps at all. Ultimately after having waited for sufficient time -3- that the Prothonotary passed a conditional order on 18th November 1997. Thereafter also a notice had been sent to the petitioner. Yet no steps were taken. Ultimately when he failed in taking steps, he took out this Motion in which he mentioned all the facts for causing delay and entirely blamed his erstwhile Advocate for causing delay who ultimately returned the papers in January 2005. 4. The present Petition is filed to recall this order passed by us on 5th October 2006. Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for three grounds for review viz. (i) if there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence, (ii) if there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) if there is any other sufficient reason. 5. We asked Mr.Holmagi appearing for the petitioner as to under which clause will he fit the present Petition. He tried to submit that this is a case where according to him there was an explanation for the delay and that should be accepted as sufficient reason and the order passed by us be recalled. -4- 6. As stated by us, Review Petition No.6 of 1998 was filed in the year 1992. Since almost for four years, no steps were taken to remove the objections, it remained un-numbered in office. Therefore, ultimately a conditional order was passed on 18th November 1997. A letter was sent to the petitioner and when the matter became operational, the Review Petition has been numbered as 6 of 1998 for the sake of record that this is the Petition which has been so rejected. 7. We do not find any explanation of the petitioner why there was so much delay. He followed up the proceedings earlier diligently until 1999 and then filed the Review Petition and did nothing until 2005. If that is the state of affairs, surely, there is no explanation nor can we say that there is any sufficient reason for us to recall our order dated 5th October 2006. Review Petition is rejected. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)