1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 1744 OF 2010 Prakashchandra Kachardas Bakliwal ( deceased through LRs) .. APPLICANTS VERSUS The Cantonment Board, Aurangabad & another. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for the applicants. Mr. D.V. Soman, advocate for respondent no. 1. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3 rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1 It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner that the statement appearing in paragraph no.6 of the order “Plaintiff has given up the issue in respect of ownership and as such the same was not decided by the trial court” is factually incorrect. Learned counsel has invited my attention to application at exh. 96 whereby the petitioner / original plaintiff has made prayer for keeping the issue in respect of ownership in abeyance in view of pendency of petition before the Apex court. Trial court has allowed the application in view of order passed on 2 27-11-1997. This factual position has not been controverted by learned counsel for the respondents. In this view the matter the statement appearing in paragraph no. 6 of the impugned order recorded above needs to be struck off and instead of that the following sentence may be substituted. . Issue in respect of ownership raised by the plaintiff was not decided by the trial court in view of the order passed below exh. 96 on 27-11-1998. 2 Consequently, sentence appearing in paragraph no. 7 of the judgment to the effect that “Thus, it reveals, on perusal of judgments of both the Courts below, that plaintiff has not established his claim in respect of ownership in the suit” needs to be deleted. Review application stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/revappln1744.10.odt 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1670 OF 2010 IN REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 1744 OF 2010. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders | CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3 rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. 1 Heard. 2 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 103 days occurred in presenting the review application. Considering the contentions raised in the application, application deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Delay of 103 days occurred in presenting the review application stands condoned. Civil application stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb / office /revappln1744.10.odt 4