( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ CIVIL APPLICATION NO.747 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.747 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.747 OF 2009 (FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER) (FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER) (FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER) IN IN IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.201 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.201 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.201 OF 2009 IN IN IN SECOND APPEAL NO.608 OF 2005 SECOND APPEAL NO.608 OF 2005 SECOND APPEAL NO.608 OF 2005 Shri Dattu Maruti Borade ..Applicant V/s. Shri. Shripati Dynanoba Borade ..Respondent ...... Mr. M.A. Patil for the applicant Mr. A.Y. Sakhare i/by YKS Legal for respondent ...... Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Board. Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Board. Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Board. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8th May, 2009 DATED : 8th May, 2009 DATED : 8th May, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This application is taken up with a prayer that order dated 5th May, 2009 passed in Civil Application No.201 of 2009 in Second Appeal No.608 of 2005 by me should be recalled. Pending the disposal of this application, certain interim reliefs are also sought. 2. As application was taken up, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sakhare has waived service on behalf of the respondent and that is how the application was taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) 3. Considering the nature of the application, I had called upon learned advocate for the applicant to first argue as to how this application in the nature of an application for recalling of order dated 5th May, 2009 is maintainable and the learned advocate was told that if the application is held as maintainable then only further and appropriate order would be passed on this application. From this angle, both the learned advocates were heard. 4. On 5th May, 2009, Civil Application No.201 of 2009 was heard and disposed of by passing a speaking order. In the said Civil Application, this Court was required to interpret a terminology "in the meantime". On the basis of record, I have passed an order in the said Civil Application dated 5th May, 2009. Today, learned advocate Mr. Patil relied upon the judgment in the case of Govind B.K. and Ors. V/s. Sadu Bapu Govind B.K. and Ors. V/s. Sadu Bapu Govind B.K. and Ors. V/s. Sadu Bapu Kamble and Ors. reported in 2005(1) ML.J. 651 Kamble and Ors. reported in 2005(1) ML.J. 651 Kamble and Ors. reported in 2005(1) ML.J. 651 in respect of his contention as regards interpretation of term "in the meantime". In my view, this judgment by itself will not support the case of the applicant with reference to the prayer in recalling of order dated 5th May, 2009. 5. Since the order dated 5th May, 2009 was passed in open Court on merits, if at all the applicant is ( 3 ) aggrieved by the said order, it is open for the applicant to file a review application or challenge such order before an appropriate forum. In my view, if an application has been heard finally by following the procedure of hearing of an application, there is no question of recalling of the order passed in that application. Such a provision in law was not pointed out and therefore there is no question of this Court deciding whether recalling of order dated 5th May, 2009 is required to be done. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I hold that this application is not maintainable. As a result, this Civil Application is required to be dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, I do not wish to saddle the applicant with the costs of Civil Application. Hence, the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . Civil Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)