- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner through Shri R. S. Mishra, Advocate on 27-3-2001 before the Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar was pleased to lay the application before the Court for orders with the office report.
(2.) THE judgment which is sought to be reviewed is of 8-1-2001 whereas the application has been filed on 27-3-2001. Admittedly this Review Application is beyond time that is why this review application is filed along with delay condonation application. THE only explanation furnished is that the petitioner could come to know about the aforesaid order when learned Counsel for the petitioner sent a letter which is received by the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of this application, that the writ petition has been dismissed and the certified copy of the judgment is also ready. It is further stated that the deponent contacted his counsel S. R. Verma on 14-3-2001 and received certified copy of the order dated 8-1-2001. THEreafter the deponent returned to his home and he was advised by his local Counsel Shri Onkar Nath Vishwakarma, Advocate to file review application because certain points have not been argued before the Hon'ble High Court. This has been asserted in para 5 of the affidavit in support of this application. THEreafter on 17-3-2001 the deponent approached Shri R. S. Mishra, Advocate present Counsel and discussed his case and thereafter Shri R. S. Mishra sought permission to file review application from the earlier Counsel, Shri S. R. Verma. THEreafter he prepared the case on 18-3-2001. THEreafter according to the statement, Review Application was presented before the registry on 19-3- 2001. This delay condonation application is also filed along with Review Application seeking review of the order passed by this Court (Hon'ble O. P. Garg, J.) on 8-1-2001. In the Review Application no grounds have been mentioned for review. It is affidavit in support of this application of review which purported to have raised certain grounds without specifying as to what grounds were not considered when the writ petition was being heard neither the affidavit of earlier Counsel nor the affidavit of the present Counsel has been filed. Thus, even if the review application is treated to be decided on merit, no ground for review is made out. Apart from above, since the delay has not been explained within the phrase 'sufficient cause', the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected and review application is also rejected. Application rejected review rejected. .;