1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ( REVIEW) NO: 539/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 5455/2008 (D) (Smt. Vandana Amarjeet Majumdar and others vs. Central Bank of India and others ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ............................................................................................................................ CORAM: D.D. SINHA & A.P. BHANGALE,JJ. DATED: 15 th July, 2009. 1. Heard Mr P.D.Meghe, the learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr N W Almlekar, the learned counsel for Respondents. 2. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner states that so far as part of the operative part of the order which is under review, reads thus : “ However so far as the grievance of petitioner nos.1,3,5 and 6 is concerned, in view of the provisions of Clause 3.1 as well as definition of word “Station” mentioned in clause 4.2 in our view, they are not eligible to be considered. Hence the petition is disposed of accordingly.” Mr P D Meghe, the learned counsel states that as per the certificate issued by Tahsildar, Hingana as well as certificate issued by the Bank, village Mohgaon (Zilpi) comes under Nagpur Urban Agglomeration. 3. The above referred fact is disputed by the counsel for the other side. Since the question is the disputed question of fact, in that view of the matter, it will not be possible for us to reconsider the issue, particularly in the review petition and, therefore, we dispose of this petition accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE sahare