D. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Munshaw who appeared for the applicant-Municipal corporation and Mr. Pandya, the learned Advocate, who appeared for the respondent. During hearing I was taken through the application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit of Dahyabhai Patel, Senior Legal Assistant of the Corporation dated 1. 2. 2002. As found from the application, after the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court on 29. 3. 2001 and on getting certified copy, the papers were sent for filing Revision Application on 9. 5. 2001 and the said papers were returned by the learned Advocate in favour of the Corporation with his opinion on 18. 7. 2001, wherein it was opined that it would be advisable to move the City Civil Court for vacating the ad interim relief. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Advocate at City civil Court with a view to move the application and the Advocate at the City Civil court opined that they should approach the High Court and accordingly the papers were entrusted for filing Revision Application at High Court and the Revision application was filed on 26. 11. 2001. It is the case of the applicant that the delay is caused due to several grounds beyond the control and accordingly there is delay of 52 days in filing the Revision Application and accordingly prayer is made for condoning the same. ( 2 ) ). An affidavit in reply is filed by respondent in detail and it is his say that no sufficient cause is shown for delay and prayed for dismissal of the application. No rejoinder is filed to this affidavit. Mr. Pandya has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad vs. Voltas Ltd. , reported in 1994 (2) GLR 1325 , and emphasized the observations made by the Full Bench in Para 13 of the said Judgment It is the contention of Mr. Pandya that reading the application, there is no explanation comes from the applicant that what steps the applicant-Corporation has taken when the papers were returned with the opinion of the advocate of the High Court on 18. 7. Pandya that reading the application, there is no explanation comes from the applicant that what steps the applicant-Corporation has taken when the papers were returned with the opinion of the advocate of the High Court on 18. 7. 2001, when they know that limitation is running against them Even no particulars are furnished by the applicant that on what date they have been advised by the Advocate of the City Civil Court to challenge the order by filing revision Application. As found, the papers were entrusted for filing the Revision application but the Advocate with his opinion has returned the papers on 18. 7. 2001. The corporation even at that time knows about the period of limitation available and in my view, though earlier decision was taken to challenge the order by way of filing revision Application, the subsequent conduct clearly shows that they have not taken care to see that the Revision Application is presented within the period of limitation. No explanation is forthcoming in the Application and accordingly this Court is of the view that no sufficient cause is shown, for which this Court is required to condone the delay. Accordingly Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs. .