1 rpw23.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Review Petition No. 23 of 2011 IN Writ Petition No. 928 of 2011 M/s. Fab Fashions ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents Mrs. Rita Bhatia with Guru S. for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bane-AGP for respondent no.1. Smt. Geeta Shastri i/b. Khilnani & co. for respondent. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- MARCH 08, 2011. P.C. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the review of the order passed by this Court dated 3rd February, 2011. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order under review has dismissed the petition on a premise that the order which was impugned in the petition dated 13th December, 2010 was for setting 2 rpw23.11.sxw aside the striking of defence of order whereas the limited relief claimed by the petitioner was for permission to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned Counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Modula India v/s. Kamakshya Singh Deo reported in 1989 AIR SC 162. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff vehemently opposes the application. She submits that the present application is nothing less but an attempt to protract the proceedings. It is further submitted that no error apparent on the face of the record has been made out by the applicants to warrant interference of the review jurisdiction. 4. From the perusal of order dated 3rd February, 2011, it would reveal that this Court has dismissed the petition on the premise that order impugned was on an application for setting aside the order striking the defence of the petitioner. However, the perusal of the application which has been rejected by the learned trial Court would reveal that the applicant has prayed for permission to cross-examine the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The Apex Court in the case of Modula India (supra) has held that even if the defence of the defendant is struck of, the defendant is still 3 rpw23.11.sxw entitled to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. 5. In that view of the matter, I find an error apparent on the face of record has been committed by this Court while passing the order dated 3rd February, 2011. The order dated 3rd February, 2011 is, therefore, recalled. The writ petition no. 928/2011 is restored to file. (B.R. GAVAI, J)