ORDER : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. Heard Mr. A.R. Medhi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel Mr. B.Sinha and learned counsel Mr. S. Saikia for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with prayer for condonation of delay of 2489 (Two Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine) days. The applicant in this case is Madhav Ch. Das. It is submitted that a review petition for reviewing the judgment and order dated 03.03.2015 passed by this Court in RSA No. 42/2012, was filed on 25.11.2022. The applicant filed a review petition on 25.11.2022 but it was withdrawn vide order dated 08.01.2024 owning to some technicalities and a fresh petition on 11.01.2024 was filed. 3. A title suit was brought up by the applicant for declaration of right, title and interest as well as khas possession with eviction and permanent injunction against the respondents which was registered as Title Suit No. 170/2006. The suit was deiced in favour of this applicant vide the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010, the appellant/defendant/respondent preferred Tile Appeal No. 22/2010 before the Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), which was dismissed by the Court vide judgment and order dated 25.08.2011. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2011, the appellant/defendant/respondent filed a second appeal being RSA No. 42/2012 before this Court and the judgment and decree of the first instant as well as the appellate Court was set aside with a direction to frame an additional issue as to whether the appellant/defendant/respondent is entitled to seek protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court of first instance was also directed to decide the same in accordance with law. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.03.2015 in RSA No. 42/2012, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court registered as SLP (C) No. 13970/2015. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing, dismissed the SLP observing that “no grounds for interference is made out to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” The SLP was dismissed accordingly vide order dated 04.07.2016. The case was then remanded back to the first Appellate Court. 6. Accordingly, the first Appellate Court took up the appeal for hearing, but the appellant/defendant did not pursue his case. The case was then remanded back to the first Appellate Court. 6. Accordingly, the first Appellate Court took up the appeal for hearing, but the appellant/defendant did not pursue his case. Therefore, on 20.09.2016, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal on default of the appellant/defendant. 7. Thereafter, the present applicant filed a Title Execution case before the Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) for execution of the original judgment and decree, which was registered as Title Execution Case No. 34/2018 and notices were issued to the appellant/respondent/defendant and accordingly, both the parties appeared before the Court. Vide the order dated 29.04.2022, the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) dismissed Title Execution Case No. 34/2018 stating that the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court was set aside to decide the case afresh by way of framing an additional issue. It is submitted that as the first Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal for default of the appellant/defendant, no executable decree exists. 8. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) in Title Execution No. 34/2018 arising out of Title Suit No. 170/2006, the applicant filed a civil revision petition before this Court, which was registered as CRP No. 69/2022. It is further submitted that at the time of admission of the revision petition, the applicant prayed before this Court to allow the applicant to file a review petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated 03.03.2015 passed in RSA No. 42/2012 and allow the prayer of the applicant. 9. The applicant then preferred the review petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated 03.03.2015 passed in RSA No. 42/2012. It is submitted that on some technicalities, the applicant had withdrawn the review petition vide petition No. 14326/2022 and vide the order dated 08.01.2024 this Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal with liberty to file afresh. The applicant then filed a review petition but there was a delay of 2489 days. It is submitted that the delay was on bonafide ground and the facts and circumstances have been elaborately explained. There was no negligence or laches on the part of the applicant. 10. It is submitted that an appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The applicant then filed a review petition but there was a delay of 2489 days. It is submitted that the delay was on bonafide ground and the facts and circumstances have been elaborately explained. There was no negligence or laches on the part of the applicant. 10. It is submitted that an appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the execution case was filed before the Court of Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) and revision petition was filed before this Court. Accordingly, the review petition was filed on 25.11.2022 which was withdrawn and the applicant was accorded an opportunity to file a fresh petition. The applicant has therefore prayed for condoning the delay of 2489 days from the date of passing of the judgment and order. The review petition ought to have been filed on 03.04.2015 and the earlier review petition was filed on 25.11.2022, which was eventually withdrawn. The instant petition was filed on 11.01.2024. 11. The respondent/opposite parties i.e. the legal heirs of Late Upananda Gogoi represented by Sanjay Gogoi, Rahul Gogoi, Ruma Gogoi and Popi Gogoi respectively are arrayed as opposite party/ respondents in this case. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by Sanjay Gogoi contending inter-alia that this application is not maintainable. It is submitted that title suit being T.S. No. 170/2006 was decreed by the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwhati. A title appeal being T.A. No. 22/2010 was preferred assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2010. This TA No.22/2010 was dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, at Kamrup (M), Guwahati. Aggrieved by Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2011, a regular second appeal being RSA No. 42/2012 was preferred before this Court. After hearing both the parties, this Court set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court vide Order dated 03.05.2015 and the matter was remanded to the first appellate court with a direction to frame an additional issue as to whether the appellant, defendant is entitled to seek protection under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act and decide the same in accordance with law. 12. 12. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of this Court, the applicant filed a special leave petition which was registered as SLP (C) 13970/2015 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the SLP filed by the applicant vide order dated 04.07.2016 holding that no ground for interference is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is submitted that as the Hon’ble Apex Court has affirmed the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2015 passed by this Court, the petitioner ought to have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court for review of the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2016 in SLP (C) 13970/2015, but instead the review petition has been filed before this Court, this review petition is not maintainable in law. 14. It is further contended that the delay was not properly explained. The petitioner ought to have explained the day to day delay and failure of such explanation indicates that no sufficient grounds were attributed by the applicant. The applicant has taken a casual and callous approach in the explanation of delay which is not ordinary delay but a delay of 2489 days. Thus, the applicant does not deserve any relief. 15. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 16. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he will be highly prejudiced if delay is not condoned. The Hon’ble Supreme court has held that no ground for interference is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution of India. It is apparent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not dealt with the merits of the case and thus, this petition is maintainable. The applicant has prayed to condone the delay and admit to the merits of the review petition. 17. On the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that as no merits were found, the SLP 13970/2015 was dismissed in-limine. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. 18. I have also scrutinized the review petition to assess the merits and determine if a lenient view can be taken to admit the review petition. 19. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the Bar relating to the inexplicable delay of 2489 delays in preferring the review petition. 20. 18. I have also scrutinized the review petition to assess the merits and determine if a lenient view can be taken to admit the review petition. 19. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the Bar relating to the inexplicable delay of 2489 delays in preferring the review petition. 20. On a cursory glance over the application, it can be deciphered that the delay has not been properly explained. Sufficient grounds were not ascribed. Moreover, I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already dealt with this matter and has dismissed the SLP by observing that no ground for interference is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is true that no substantial averment has come on record that the appellant has approached this Court with any malafide intention or in absence of good faith. 21. The applicant has laid stress through his submissions that if the review petition is not admitted to its merits, complainant will be highly prejudiced as framing of additional issue will send back the case to where it began. 22. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Purni Devi & anr. vs. Babu Ram & anr. reported in (2024) 4 S.C.R. 37 wherein it has been observed that: “37. No substantial averment has come on record to substantiate the claim that the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiff approached the Tehsildar with any mala fide intention, in the absence of good faith or with the knowledge that it was not the Court having competent jurisdiction to execute the decree. The object to advance the cause of justice, as well must be kept in mind. 38. We do not find the reasoning given by the learned High Court in paragraph 9 while rejecting the plea for exclusion of time to be sustainable. On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has pursued the matter bonafidely and diligently and in good faith before what it believed to be the appropriate forum and, therefore, such time period is bound to be excluded when computing limitation before the Court having competent jurisdiction. All conditions stipulated for invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are fulfilled. 39. All conditions stipulated for invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are fulfilled. 39. Therefore, in view of the above discussion the period from 18.12.2000, when the execution application was filed to 29.01.2005, when the prior proceeding was dismissed, has to be excluded while computing period of limitation, which results in the execution application filed by the Plaintiff, being within the limitation period prescribed under Article 182 of the Limitation Act as well, which is 3 years. 40. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 09.04.2018 and Munsiff Court, Hiranagar dated 28.11.2007 are set aside. The execution application of the Plaintiff is restored to the file of the Munsiff Court, Hiranagar for fresh consideration, in consonance with the view on limitation which has been decided above.” 23. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the ratio of the decision of Purni Devi (supra) is not applicable to this case. This Court vide order dated 03.05.2015 in RSA No.42/2012 remanded back the case to the first appellate court to frame additional issues and against this order, an SLP ( Civil) 13970/2015 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.07.2016. Title Appeal No.22/2010 was dismissed on 20.09.2016. A title execution case was registered for execution of the decree, but the learned Civil Judge No. 2 Kamrup (Metro) vide order dated 29.04.2022 in Title Execution 34/2018 dismissed the execution case observing that there was no executable decree. Without any prayer in the pleading for exclusion of the time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for exclusion of time wherein a revision petition was filed before this Court against the order dated 29.04.2022 in Title Execution No.34/2018. It is submitted that at the time of admission of the revision petition, the applicant has prayed before this Court to allow him to file a review petition seeking review of the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2015 passed in RSA No.42/2012 and allow the prayer of the applicant. On some technicalities, the applicant had withdrawn the revision petition in a vague manner. The applicant has prayed for exclusion of the time in filing the review petition as the petition was filed bonafide and with due diligence. 24. On some technicalities, the applicant had withdrawn the revision petition in a vague manner. The applicant has prayed for exclusion of the time in filing the review petition as the petition was filed bonafide and with due diligence. 24. It is submitted that the bonafide error in filing a petition has to be considered to an advance cause of justice rather than to abort proceedings. The applicant is not guilty of negligence, lapse or inaction. 25. After considering the submissions at the Bar, it is held that the applicant had already preferred an SLP against the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2015 passed in RSA No.42/2012 and vide order dated 04.07.2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP No.13970/2015. Thereby, this Court cannot entertain a petition for review of the same order in RSA 42/2012, more so when there has been inexplicable delay of 2489 days. Even if the period excluding the time when a revision petition was preferred by the applicant is considered, yet the inordinate delay cannot be condoned. 26. The revision petition was filed against the impugned order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Execution Case No.34/2018 arising out of Title Suit No. 170/2006. Vide order of this Court dated 03.11.2022 in CRP No.69/2022, the applicant’s prayer for seeking review of the Judgment and order dated 03.03.2015 passed in the RSA No. 42/2012 was allowed. It was observed by this Court in CRP No.69/2022 as “In that background, the present petitioner preferred a execution petition for execution of the decree. However, as this Court had set aside the judgment of the court of first instance along with the appellate judgment while remanding the matter, the learned executing court dismissed such petition holding that there is no judgment and no execution can be initiated. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to file review application seeking review of the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2015 passed in RSA No.42/2012. Such prayer is allowed.” 27. Hence, the review petition. 28. It has already been held in the foregoing discussions that the prayer for condonation of delay cannot be allowed and the condonation stands rejected. 29. It would be apt to reiterate that at a much later stage, the petitioner has filed an application to review the order dated 03.03.2015 passed in RSA No.42/2012. Hence, the review petition. 28. It has already been held in the foregoing discussions that the prayer for condonation of delay cannot be allowed and the condonation stands rejected. 29. It would be apt to reiterate that at a much later stage, the petitioner has filed an application to review the order dated 03.03.2015 passed in RSA No.42/2012. Even if the period whence, the petition was erroneously filed for review is excluded and if the period of delay is calculated from 03.03.2015, the inertia and inaction reflects that delay cannot be condoned. The review petition also cannot be admitted to its merit when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP No. 13970/2015 holding that no ground for interference is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 30. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, this petition with prayer for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. 31. No order as to costs.