ORDER M.F. Saldanha, J.—I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. The office has pointed out that there is a delay of 257 days and the I.A. No. 1 filed by the Petitioner is for condonation of delay. The reasons briefly set out in the affidavit are that the proceeding was handled by another learned Advocate, that there were some lapses on his part, that there was a communication gap and that though the original order was passed by this Court on 14.2.1997, the certified copy was sent to Bangalore by the learned Advocate only on 23.10.1997. The Petitioner's learned Advocate states that it is well settled law that in those of the instances where there is an error on the part of an Advocate that the party should not be made to suffer. There is no dispute with regard to this proposition. The decision of the Supreme Court reported in Manjunatha Rao Vs. Rukminiyamma, ILR (1986) KAR 327 has also been brought to my notice. That decision does not help the Petitioner because the facts of that case were entirely different. The affidavit that has been filed in this case hardly makes out any case for condonation of delay. The Respondents have opposed the condonation of delay and this Court is therefore obliged to decide as to whether this is a fit case in which the delay ought to be condoned. A perusal of the order sheet of this case in the High Court alone makes pathetic reading. The number of dates of hearing that the case has passed through and the amount of judicial time that has been taken up represents an extremely sorry state of affairs. Personally I get the impression that the litigation which is close to about 43 years old ought not to be continued on frivolous grounds. This Court passed an order and if the party was aggrieved by the order there are other remedies such as by way of an Appeal. After the lapse of considerable time the Civil Petition is filed virtually for review, which in my considered view is not the appropriate legal remedy. Even assuming that the Petitioner was aggrieved by the earlier order in question this review proceeding itself is thoroughly misconceived and therefore devoid of substance and that is an issue of consequence. After the lapse of considerable time the Civil Petition is filed virtually for review, which in my considered view is not the appropriate legal remedy. Even assuming that the Petitioner was aggrieved by the earlier order in question this review proceeding itself is thoroughly misconceived and therefore devoid of substance and that is an issue of consequence. Often times, a Court is required to evaluate whether some indulgence can be shown in a case where the Court is of the view that a party has a good case on merits. That is the reason why this Court was required to consider the validity or otherwise of the Civil Petition. Apart from this, to my mind, where the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, the Court would be erring in the use of judicial discretion if the delay is condoned. 2. There is another aspect of law that is involved viz., the question as to whether the Courts should mechanically and habitually condone delay merely because the applications are made for condonation of delay. The ground pleaded viz., that there was an error on the part of the learned Advocate is to my mind, not the issue involved at all in the present case. On merits, I find that there is absolutely no substance in the Civil Petition that has been filed and that is the reason why this Court does not need to address itself to the subsidiary question as to whether this is a fit case to condone the delay or not. 3. In sum and substance therefore, the I.A. I deserves to be dismissed and this is accordingly done. No order as to costs.