1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 10897 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 539 OF 2009 Shivaji Sardarsingh Rajput @ Shivaji Sarjerao Rupnar & ors. ... Petitioner v/s Amol Vishnupant Mahindrakar ... Respondent Mr.Pankaj J. Das for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Suryavanshi for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 25TH JUNE, 2010 P.C.: 1. The review petition has been filed in respect of the order passed on 21.11.2009. By this order, the learned advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that he should be permitted to withdraw the civil revision application. However, he sought six months’ time for the applicants to vacate the suit premises. 2. In my view, the review petition against such an order is 2 not maintainable. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank v/s M/s.Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in A.I.R. 1996 SC 2592, and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department & ors., v/s Mudiiki Bhimesh Nanda, reported in 2004 (4) ALT 367. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has admitted the review in respect of a matter where the earlier proceeding was withdrawn. 3. The main contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners appears to be that the suit property in respect of which the suit was filed was an open land and, therefore, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act would not be applicable. No such contention has been raised by the applicants, either before the Small Causes Court or the Appellate Court or in the civil revision application. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed. ..... 3