(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2007 (In Second Appeal No. 161 of 2002) Ashokkumar s/o. Kanhaiyalal Wani. .. Applicant (Original appellant) versus The State of Maharashtra & another. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate, holding for Mr. R.B. Raghuwanshi, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondents. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 3RD MAY 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The grievance of the appellant is, by virtue of the (2) orders dated 16th June 2007, dismissing the Second Appeal, remedies left to the appellant (original plaintiff) before the competent authorities are scuttled. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits, unless the observation, that the remedies are open to be prosecuted, is made, the applicant (original plaintiff) would not be able to avail civil proceedings. 3. The clarification, as sought by the learned Counsel for the applicant (original plaintiff) will hardly be in sphere of any review. It is the requirement under the law, that the appellant / applicant to point out the mistake crept in or non- consideration of vital document which was produced. No such eventuality is emerging. The findings recorded by this court vide order dated 16th June 2007 do not call for any interference. 4. The Review Application lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ra96