1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 5 OF 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2003 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2002 Chandramani Devraj Tiwari. ... ... Petitioner. Versus The Secretary, Smt. Ramdulari Brujrajnath Tiwari & Ors. ... Respondents. Petitioner present-in-person. None for the Respondents. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2009. P. C.: This Letters Patent Appeal was heard by the Division Bench of this Court (J.N.Patel & A. A. Sayed, JJ.), which disposed of the same by an Order dated 25th January, 2008. The application for review of the order has been filed only on the ground that after the Letters Patent Appeal was heard, the said Division Bench allowed the appeal through an oral order but when the judgment was finally pronounced it had dismissed the appeal. 2. Obviously, this is a canard against the Division Bench of this Court 2 which cannot be a basis for reviewing the order of the Division Bench. When this review petition was placed before the Division Bench of J.N.Patel & A. A. Sayed, JJ., they declined to hear the matter and requested the learned Chief Justice to place this matter before another Bench. By an order of the learned Chief Justice, this case has been assigned, in these circumstances, to this Bench. 3. If the petitioner was aggrieved of the order passed by the Division Bench, he had remedy of appeal, but could not have accused the Court of having passed an order orally which was different from the order which was passed subsequently in writing. All orders passed by the Courts are passed in writing and the orders or judgment of the Courts become final only after they are signed by the Judges. 4. This is a mischievous application for review only to malign the Judges of the Court and the petitioner wants to blackmail and get the order passed in his favour. We are restraining ourselves from proceeding in contempt against the petitioner for the reasons that Court always shows restraint in dealing with such behaviour. We hope that the petitioner will not indulge in such gimmicks in future. 5. In the circumstances, this review petition is dismissed as misconceived with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The costs be paid by the petitioner 3 to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Bombay, within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)