Judgement ORDER:- This is an application for condonation of the delay in preferring the review petition which was filed on 10-5-1995 to review the judgment that was passed on 25-5-1994 in Civil Rule No. 99 of 1986. 2. I have heard Mr. Kh. Chonjohn, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Gogonchandra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. The facts material for disposal of this petition are that some time in the year 1979 A. D. the Government of Manipur took over possession of land measuring 50 hectars belonging to one Lunkhopa now represented by his legal representatives, namely, Shri Paulienmang Singson and two others. Since the Government did not pay any compensation, the petitioners filed an application on 22-9-1981 to the Collector for payment of the compensation money. But the Collector disposed of that application by making an observation that the petitioners would not be entitled to get any sort of compensation until and unless their right, title and interest are decided by the Civil Court. The Collector intimated this decision to the petitioners by his letter dated 4-1-1983. The petitioners therefore, filed a suit, namely O. S. 8 of 1984 in the Court of learned Munsiff, Churachandpur against the Government of Manipur and others. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsiff by his judgment dated 12-6-1984. After obtaining that decree the petitioners approached the Government by filing a representation dated 1-8-1984 for consideration of their claim for payment of compensation but that was not granted. So, after service of demand notice the petitioners, at last, filed Civil Rule No. 99 of 1986 which was disposed of on 25th of May, 1994, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. By this judgment the respondents i.e. the State of Manipur were directed to issue necessary notification for acquisition of the land in question so that the petitioners might get the compensation money of the aforesaid land within a period of six months. No appeal was filed against this order. But on 10-5-1995 the present petitioners filed an application to review the aforesaid judgment dated 25-5-1994 in Civil Rule No. 99 of 1986 and along with that review application this application for condonation of delay has also been filed. 4. No appeal was filed against this order. But on 10-5-1995 the present petitioners filed an application to review the aforesaid judgment dated 25-5-1994 in Civil Rule No. 99 of 1986 and along with that review application this application for condonation of delay has also been filed. 4. The grounds set forth in the application are that after examination of all the relevant official files the Director of Horticulture and Soil Conservation, Manipur addressed a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary on 28-2-1985 and some important documents being discovered the Government decided to file an application to review the judgment dated 25-5-1994. Accordingly the matter was referred to the learned Senior Government Advocate Mr. K. Irabot Singh sometime in the last week of February, 1995. But Mr. K. Irabot retired from service with effect from 31-3-1995. The matter was thus delayed. It was further stated that the respondents took time for examining the matter as the file had to be processed through many officers. These are the main grounds for delay in filing the review petition. 5. Mr. Gogonchandra, learned counsel who accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents has vigorously opposed to grant this condonation prayer mainly on the ground that the delay has not been sufficiently explained. Mr. Chonjohn, the learned founsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has, on the other hand, contended that since different departments had to be consulted the Government needed time and hence the delay. 6. Now it will appear from the facts that the review application has been filed after 11 1/2 months. The suit which the respondents filed for declaration of their right, title and interest in the aforesaid land was decreed on 12-6-1984. The Government did not prefer any appeal against that judgment and decree. Now the judgment which the petitioners want to review was announced in the open Court soon after the arguments of the parties were over. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Government was unaware of the judgment that was announced on 25-5-1994. 7. Now the question which has been raised is whether question of limitation arises in the case of review application. It is submitted by Mr. Chonjohn that so far as review of a judgment in a writ proceeding is concerned there is no prescribed period of limitation within which such an application is required to be filed. 7. Now the question which has been raised is whether question of limitation arises in the case of review application. It is submitted by Mr. Chonjohn that so far as review of a judgment in a writ proceeding is concerned there is no prescribed period of limitation within which such an application is required to be filed. It is true that the period of thirty days as provided under Art. 124 of the Limitation Act does not apply to review of a judgment in a writ case. The question, therefore, arises can a review application be filed after any length of time? The answer will be that the Court may refuse to grant such condonation prayer if there has been undue delay in making an application for review of the judgment. In this context it may also be pertinent to mention here that although there is no period of limitation for the Courts to exercise powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court in the case of P. S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271 held : " Where a Government servant slept over the promotions of his juniors over his head for fourteen years and then approached the High Court with writ petition challenging the relaxation of relevant rules in favour of the juniors, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. Such an aggrieved person should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of promotion of his juniors. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Art. 226, nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Art. 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. " 8. " 8. It is true that in the ease of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 the Supreme Court held that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. 9. But in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 the Supreme Court under para 21 of its judgment held "The provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art. 226. However, the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a Civil Court must be brought may oridnarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art. 226 can be measured. The Court may consider the delay unreasonable if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period it will always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable. " 10. It is true that provisions of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not strictly apply to such an application to review or reconsider a decision under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly Art.137 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the writ proceedings. But even then if an application inviting this Court under Art. 226 Constitution to review its decision when it is filed after a long lapse of time without proper explanation for the delay, I am of the view that this Court would be justified in rejecting the application on that ground alone as would be sound exercise of discretion. 11. Coming now to the merits of the case, it may be reiterated that the land relating to which the controversy has arisen was taken over by the Government of Manipur as far back as in the year 1979 A.D. followed by a civil suit which was decreed on 12.6.1984. No appeal was preferred against this decree. 11. Coming now to the merits of the case, it may be reiterated that the land relating to which the controversy has arisen was taken over by the Government of Manipur as far back as in the year 1979 A.D. followed by a civil suit which was decreed on 12.6.1984. No appeal was preferred against this decree. The decree-holders repeatedly approached the Government but the Government having turned a deaf-ear to their requests, they ultimately approached this Court by means of an application being Civil Rule No. 99 of 1986 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition was disposed of in presence of both the learned counsel on 25-5-1994 and despite this fact the Government did not take any effective step for implementation of the directions. On the other hand after 11 1/2 months this application for review has been filed. In the application for condonation it has not been stated when Government could discover the material evidence. The documentary evidence which the petitioners now like to rely on is a gift deed purported to have been executed on 15th July, 1986 between Lokhopao Kuki, the doner and M. Lokhoma, the donee. It does not appear to have been executed in favour of the Government. No ground has been assigned why no appeal was preferred. No ground has also been given why only in the last week of 1995 i.e. after 14 months the matter was referred to the learned Senior Government Advocate. On perusal of the application for condonation I actually find that there is no substantial ground for this unusual delay in making the application for review of the judgment. It appears to be a case of gross negligence. 12. Moreover, according to High Court Rules (Chapter 10, Rule 3 of the Gauhati High Court Rules) whenever any application for review is filed on the ground that some fresh evidence, namely, some documentary evidence has been discovered such documents, if relied on has to be annexed to the application with an affidavit setting forth the circumstances under which such discovery has been made. But in the instant case, as already stated, it has not been stated under what circumstances this discovery was made. 13. In the result the application for condonation of delay is rejected but under the circumstances there would be no order as to cost. Petition dismissed.