1. Ms.Ujwala, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 4 days in filing this review petition is on account of the time taken to decide as to whether the review petition is to be filed of S.L.P is to be filed. She further submits that the paper were also sent to her counter-part in Delhi.

2. Sri Vamshi Krishna, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the delay of 4 days in filing this review petition is not properly and cogently explained.

3. Appreciating the explanation offered, this Court deems it just to condone the delay of 4days in filing this review petition. Accordingly Misc.Cvl.7798/10 is allowed.

4. The petitioner has sought the review of the order, dated 15.09.2009 passed by this Court W.P.No.24816/09. The Trail Court’s order, dated 15.4.2009 refusing to grant permission to file the written statement was impugned in the said writ petition. Not finding bonafide reasons for the two years’ delay in filing the written statement, this Court confirmed the Trail Court’s order and dismissed the writ petition.

5. Ms. Ujwala, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there have been multiple documents arising form voluminous t