CAO/191/2010 AND RPST/26894/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2010 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO.26894 OF 2010 Talimi Adara – E- Mubarkiya … Applicant V/s. Shri Abdul Karim Sadruddin Makandar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.M. Arjunwadkar for Applicant Mr.P.I. Khemani, AGP, for Respondent State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 22, 2010 P.C.: The civil application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the application for review. Delay is condoned. Civil application is disposed of accordingly. CAO/191/2010 AND RPST/26894/2010 : 2 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2010 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO.26894 OF 2010 Talimi Adara – E- Mubarkiya … Applicant V/s. Shri Abdul Karim Sadruddin Makandar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.M. Arjunwadkar for Applicant Mr.P.I. Khemani, AGP, for Respondent State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 22, 2010 P.C.: 1. The review application has been filed for review of the impugned order passed on 17.6.2010. The grievance of the review petitioner is that although he had filed a caveat, the petition was admitted without any intimation to him. The revisional petitioner’s advocate was informed of the caveat having been filed despite which no notice was given to the review petitioner when the original writ petition was on board for admission. Besides this, the name of the advocate for the review petitioner was not shown on board on that date when the original writ petition was admitted. 2. A review of the order passed on 17.6.2010 is sought on this ground. CAO/191/2010 AND RPST/26894/2010 : 3 : 3. In my opinion, the application is misconceived. Although a caveat had been filed and the name of the petitioner’s advocate was not shown on the Board, the petitioner has been issued notice of the rule having been issued on August 17, 2006. Despite this, the petitioner did not choose to file a Vakalatnama or put in an appearance of an advocate. In fact, he did not care to appear even when a civil application for restoration of the writ petition was filed and orders were passed on that civil application on 15.12.2006. Thus for about 4 years, the review petitioner has not cared to put in an appearance. 4. Review application is rejected.