1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7147 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7148 of 2009 Shri Shiakh Chand Ismile ... Applicant. Versus Smt. Sunita Bharat Jaybhay & others ... Respondents. -------- Shri N.B. Ghute Advocate h/f Shri N.V. Gavare Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.v. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. Shri L.B. Pallod, Advocate for respondent No. 6. Shri S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondent. Shri A.S. Osmanpurkar, Advocate h/f for Shri K.V. Kulkarni -------- CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE: 7th NOVEMBER 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1) Heard. Learned counsel Mr. Ghute holding for Mr. Gavare Advocate seeks adjournment. It appears that the review application was adjourned from time to time and is pending since long. On previous dates i.e. 2 18-07-2009 and 31-07-2009, adjournment was granted at the request of Mr. Gaikwad and Mr. Ghute. The request is unreasonable and is rejected. 2) I have duly considered the grounds stated in the review application. The delay of 244 days in filing of review application is also not properly explained. According to the applicant, the delay is caused due to the time consumed in obtaining finance, so as to filing the application for review. He has asserted : “ the applicant states that, thereafter the applicant had to arrange for the funds and could make some arrangements upto 11-02-2009. The applicants states that, applicant went to Delhi and had conference with Advocate Mr. Manish Nayak who practices in Supreme Court on 15-02-2009 for filing Civil Appeal. “ The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay make it amply clear that the applicant approach the Advocate for reviewing the order rendered by this Court or that the order of this court was required to be challenged before the Apex Court. If, this is the fact situation, it is amply clear that the applicant was not prohibited from filing review 3 application within the time prescribed, due to any tangible reason. 3) The First Appeal filed by the applicant came to be dismissed because of negligence of the driver of the jeep vehicle bearing No. MH-04- AA-4958 owned by the applicant was duly proved. The case is of contributory negligence by the jeep vehicle and Rickshaw vehicle. There is no substantial ground shown in the application for reviewing the earlier order rendered on 29-08-2008. The contention of the applicant was that the Insurance Company was wrongly exonerated though deceased Bharat was a gratitious passenger. It is not possible to reopen the whole issue merely on the basis of submission stated in the application. 5) In the result, delay condonation application as well as review application are dismissed. (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) SDM/ 7147.09 4 5