MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. - (1.) This review petition is delayed by 559 days. It is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
(2.) A perusal of the application reveals that review of the judgment dated 19.11.2016 passed in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 110/2000 is being sought. The judgment dated 19.11.2016 was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; but, the petition was withdrawn on 10.04.2017. Thereafter, this review petition has been filed on 01.06.2018 i.e. with a delay of 559 days. A perusal of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act reveals that it is bereft of any reason explaining inordinate delay in preferring the review petition. As a matter of fact, the only reason assigned is in para 3 of the application, which is as under: "3. That the counsel for the review petitioners- defendants-Corporation sought leave to withdraw the special leave petition with the prayer to file a review petition before the Hon'ble High Court. The review petitioner availed the remedy of SLP and thereafter because of departmental exigency as also departmental formalities, the delay was occurred in filing the present review petition. The delay was on account of official cause and if the delay is not condoned would frustrate the cause of justice. The delay is unintenitonal and it is just because of benevolence cause. In the facts and circumstances the review petitioners shall suffer irreparable and irremediable injury if the delay is not condoned."
(3.) It is apparent from the contents of para 3 of the application that it does not offer any explanation what to speak of satisfactory reason for inordinate delay in filing the review petition. It is true that some lineancy is extended by the Court in entertaining the applications seeking condonation of delay by the Government/Statutory authorities; but, the salutary object behind the Limitation Act cannot be set at naught merely on asking of the Government/Statutory Authorities.;