JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J: - Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. By consent of the parties both the applications - the application for condonation of delay in filing the review application as well as the review application itself - were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition in relation to the order passed on 18th November, 2002 in Second Appeal No. 779 of 2002 rejecting the second appeal for want of substantial questions of law in the matter.

3. It is the case of the applicants that the Advocate for the applicants applied for certified copy of the order dated 18th November, 2002 and the same was ready on 18th February, 2003 and the same was delivered to the Advocate for the applicants on 6th March, 2003. The applicants, thereafter, contacted their Advocate Shri Yogesh Mehta on 16th March, 2003 to inquire about the certified copy of the said order whereupon, he told the applicants to pay his balance amount of fee of Rs. 5,000/-. After collecting the said amount of fees, the applicants came to Mumbai on 15th April, 2003 for collecting the certified copy from the said Advocate. Pursuant thereto, after discussing the matter amongst themselves, the applicants decided to file review application, and accordingly they approached another Advocate Shri L.S. Gaikwad on 30th April, 2003, who informed the applicants to get all the records in relation to the matter. Thereafter, they came to know that the documents disclosing their rights to the suit property were to be found out and to be gathered by obtaining information from the different places and from different persons and therefore, in the process, it took considerable time, and after collecting the relevant documents, it was revealed to them that the properties have been partitioned long back by their ancestors, and the said evidence in the form of public documents was required to be brought on record as the entire case could be disposed of on the basis of those documents. Since the documents were not on record and for the first time, the applicants could lay their hands on those documents after collecting the same, they came to Mumbai on 15th June, 2003 and handed over all those papers to their Advocate Shri L.S. Gaikwad. It is their further case that due to drought for three years, they had no sufficient funds and they had to collect the same from their relatives and friends for the purpose of filing the review petition, and after collecting the funds from all sources on 27th June, 2003, they again came to Mumbai for filing review petition, which was delayed by more than 187 days.

4. The application for condonation of delay discloses the two grounds, (i) delay in getting the certified copy of the order passed in Second Appeal No. 779 of 2002, and (ii) after obtaining the certified copy and contacting another Advocate, the applicants realised the need of collecting certain documents and, in the process, took some time to collect the same.

5. In relation to the obtaining of the certified copy, according to the applicants, they received the same on 15th April, 2003. The order in the second appeal was passed on 18th November, 2002. It is well settled that for the purpose of review petition, there is no need to obtain certified copy of the order. Even without annexing the certified copy of the order, the review petition can be filed. That apart, the application does not disclose the date on which the application for certified copy of the order passed in second appeal was filed. It only refers to the date on which the certified copy was ready for delivery. Even after the certified copy was ready for delivery on 18th February, 2003, there is no explanation as to why it was not collected till 6th March, 2003 by the Advocate for the applicants. There is no affidavit of the Advocate Shri Yogesh Mehta that he retained the certified copy

Click Here to Read the rest of this document