Judgment: 1. Heard on IA No. 5384/2013, an application for condonation of delay. There is delay of eight years, six months and eleven days in filing the present petition. 2. It is pleaded in the application that the judgment was pronounced on 8.4.2005 in S.T. No. 257/1992. The file of the petitioner was misplaced and the office of the earlier counsel was shifted from Gwalior to Indore. The applicants were not aware of the details of the case and thereafter they received the case file from the successor office and then filed the case. No particular dates have been mentioned by the petitioners in this regard. Only general pleadings have been pleaded. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others reported in 2013 STPL (Web) 737 SC has held as under in regard to the facts which could be taken into consideration for the purpose of condonation of delay. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 4. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that it is the duty of the party to explain the delay within the parameters of Section 5 of the Limitation Act that what was the sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or filing the application within such time. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 casts the duty on the applicant to explain and satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or filing the application within time. 5. The facts mentioned in the application do not explain sufficient cause for not filing the review petition within time, hence, application 5384/2013 for condonation of delay in filing review petition is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the review petition also stands dismissed.