1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.1035/2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2383/2007 (Decided) Omprakash Keshaorao Chokhani ...Versus... Smt. Kusum wd/o Madhaorao Nagmote and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri P.V. Vaidya, Adv. for applicant] [Shri V.V. Bhangde, Adv. for respdt. No.1, 3 to 6] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 08.02.2008 Heard Shri Vaidya, learned Counsel for the review petitioner and Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6. Learned Counsel for review petitioner argued that the suit was partly closed for arguments and in fact arguments were heard when this Court entertained the writ petition and allowed amendment application (Exh. 266) in the said writ petition. He, therefore, sought review of the said order. Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel opposed the prayer for review. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival 2 parties, I find that the arguments advanced by Advocate Shri Vaidya were not pressed into service when the writ petition was heard and, therefore, there was no occasion for this Court to consider this aspect of the matter. But that by itself cannot be a ground to make review. Hence, prayer for review is rejected. However, Shri Vaidya, learned Counsel submits that the suit is of the year 1992. In that view of the matter and since the suit has progressed well, I direct the Trial Court to decide the suit in any case before Summer Vacation of 2008. Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of. JUDGE ssw