-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 54 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1971 OF 2011 Ramesh V. Junnnare. ..Petitioner. Versus Sarvajanik Vachnalaya & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Sagar Kasar for the petitioner. Mr. P. B. Shah for R-1 to 3. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for R-5. Mr. M. Panchakshari i/b Mr.C. Damare for R-4. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : September 15, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. This Review Petition is filed by respondent no.2 in Writ Petition. Perused the order dated 3/5/2011 passed by me. By the said order, the petitioners in writ petition were allowed to intervene in Change Report No. 790 of 2008. Liberty to lead evidence in support of their contentions was also given to the petitioners. There is no objection so far this part of the operative order is concerned. The contention of the review petitioner seems to be that taking advantage of the order dated 3/5/2011, the petitioners in writ petition want to substitute himself in place srp -: 2 :- of respondent no.2 in the writ petition, who is reporting trustee. In my view, the operative part of the order dated 3/5/2011 is very clear and needs no explanation. The Assistant Charity Commissioner will dispose of the Change Report No.790 of 2008 in compliance with the order of this Court dated 3/5/2011. With these observations review petition is disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.) -: 3 :- Review petition no. 55 of 2011. The review petition is taken out by respondent no.1 in writ petition. The review petitioner contends that the clause (2ii) in the operative part of the order dated 3/5/2011 is uncalled for in view of the fact that the petitoners in writ petition has restricted their petition to the relief claimed in prayer clause (b) only, which is wrongly typed as (d). correct. The said p