JUDGMENT : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. Heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. S. Sutradhar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the Respondents No.3 to 7. 2. The instant application is filed invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 707 days in filing the accompanying review petition. 3. The review sought is of the order dated 31.10.2016 passed in PIL No.137 of 2015. At the outset, it is necessary to be taken note that though the said PIL No.137 of 2015 was initiated on taking note of a letter which had been addressed by the applicant No.1 herein, the PIL, in fact, had proceeded as suo moto proceeding registered by this Court. In that circumstance, this Court had ultimately disposed of the PIL through the order dated 31.10.2016. In such circumstance, the fact of disposal of the said PIL was not in the presence of the applicants herein which would also be relevant while taking note of delay of 707 days, which otherwise in normal circumstance would have appeared as inordinate delay. In that background, what is also to be kept in view is that the applicants herein, apart from addressing the said communication to this Court on the administrative side which resulted in the registration of the PIL, had also instituted a writ petition in W.P.(C) No.2197/2015 in respect of the death of their son seeking that the investigation in that regard be entrusted to the CBI. The said writ petition came to be disposed of through the order dated 15.06.2018 entirely on the basis of the order dated 31.10.2016 passed in the PIL referred to above. 4. In that circumstance, presently the reason put forth to file the accompanying review petition is that their prayer seeking an appropriate investigation into the causes leading to the death of their son, has remained inconclusive. In that regard, it is also pointed out that though through the order dated 20.01.2017, in G.R. Case No.6051/15, the jurisdictional court had directed further investigation in the matter, such investigation or the investigation as was sought by the applicants from the CBI cannot be proceeded at this juncture since the order dated 31.10.2016 passed in PIL No.137/2015 would come in the way. It is in that circumstance, the applicants thought it fit to file the review petition and, in that circumstance, the delay has occurred. 5. If the above facts are taken note, certainly the reason as assigned will have to be considered as sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed.