1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.532 of 2010 In Appeal against Order No.20 of 2010 (Kazi Karimuddin s/o Kazi Faiyazuddin v. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.A. Marathe, Advocate for Applicant. Shri B.M. Kharkate, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shri A.H. Jamal, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 28 th September, 2010 By this application, review is sought of the order dated 3-3-2010 passed by this Court dismissing Appeal against Order No.20 of 2010. The learned District Judge had, by an order dated 1-7-2008, condoned the delay caused in filing the application for restoration of Trust Appeal No.2 of 1997. However, on merits, the application for restoration of the Trust Appeal was rejected. This was the subject matter of challenge in Appeal against Order No.20 of 2010. This Court has observed that the learned District Judge 2 has noted that dismissal of the first appeal was not on account of absence on one date alone, but it was dismissed because of deliberate inaction as well as gross negligence on the part of the appellant in pursuing the appeal. It has been further noted that the learned District Judge has observed that the application made was not bona fide and there is nothing to show that the appellant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing on the date of hearing. This Court has confirmed the observations of the learned District Judge and dismissed the appeal. The ground for review is that the learned District Judge, having condoned the delay in filing an application for restoration, by an order dated 1-7-2008 should have restored the appeal, as the reasons stated in the application for restoration were the same as were stated in the application for restoration. This ground was available when the appeal was decided. This Court has taken into consideration the findings recorded by the learned District Judge and dismissed the appeal. To permit the appellant to raise this point again, would amount to re-hearing of the appeal, which is not permissible. Hence, the review application is dismissed. Judge pdl