1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Review Application No. 22/2009 In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.370/1999 (Dhanna Lal Versus Om Prakash & Others) Date of Order :: 31st August, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Sudhanshu Joshi, Counsel for the applicant-appellant(s) BY THE COURT: The applicant-appellant has preferred this review application before this Court on 3rd October, 2006 to review the order dated 13th April, 2006, whereby the second appeal filed by the applicant-appellant was dismissed at admission stage as no substantial question of law was found to be involved in the present second appeal. The review application has been preferred with a delay of 143 days. The applicant-appellant has, therefore, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the review application. The appellant has explained the delay of 143 days in para 3 of the application, which is reproduced as under:- 2 “3. That the appellant came to Jaipur on 8.9.2006 and when he met his counsel he was informed that the second appeal was dismissed on 13.4.2006 and a letter to this effect was also drawn by the clerk of the counsel to the appellant of his Rajgarh address. The appellant however, did not receive this letter otherwise he would have immediately come to Jaipur for taking steps in the matter. The appellant thereafter applied for the certified copy on 8.9.2006 itself and the certified copy was granted on 15.9.2006. On intimation by the counsel that the certified copy has been obtained, the appellant came to Jaipur on 24.9.2006 and got the review application and the application for condonation of delay drafted and typed. The review petition and this application for condonation of delay are being submitted today on the opening day after the Dashahara Brake.” The above para makes it clear that the delay from 13th April, 2006 to 8th September, 2006 has not been explained. When the appellant was informed about dismissal of second appeal by the counsel and his clerk, neither the affidavit of the counsel nor his clerk has been filed in this regard. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 143 days in filing the review petition. Hence the application under Section 5 3 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Apart from above, I also considered the order dated 13th April, 2006 and I do not find any error apparent in it, so as to review it. There was a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, and further that no substantial question of law was involved in the second appeal in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the second appeal was rightly dismissed. In view of above, the review application is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK/