IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion 60 of 2008 Notice of Motion 60 of 2008 Notice of Motion 60 of 2008 & Review Application (st) No.9 of 2008 Review Application (st) No.9 of 2008 Review Application (st) No.9 of 2008 in in in Writ Petition No.2285 of 1994 Writ Petition No.2285 of 1994 Writ Petition No.2285 of 1994 Dalsinghar Damodar Thakur ..Petitioner versus Kurbanbhai Mohammed & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.A.G.Damle for the Petitioner Mr.G.B.Kedia for the respondent No.1 Mr.G.A.Nalawade GP for the state Mrs.Mukta Gobse for the respondent nos.4 to 7 Ms. Kumud Bhatia for the respondent Nos.8-9 Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J. & Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J. & Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J. & Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J. Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J. Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J. Dated : 28th March, 2008 Dated : 28th March, 2008 Dated : 28th March, 2008 P.C. 1. The first application has been filed for condonation of delay of 114 days in filing the review application. In the review application the applicant prays for recalling of the Order dated 27th August, 2007. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant. Firstly, there is no reason much less substance for condonation of delay of 114 days -2- in filing the review petition. Even if we were to ignore that aspect of the matter, the review application itself is without any merits. The application itself is beyond the purview and scope of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is averred that the applicant had not instructed his counsel for granting consent to the passing of the order dated 27.8.2007. Neither affidavit of the counsel has been filed nor there is any material to that effect. In any case, this practice needs to be deprecated. Reference can be made to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Beyram Pestonji Jariwala vs. Union Bank of India & Others AIR 1991 SC 2234 where it was held that counsel has the authority to enter into a compromise and it is binding. Viewed from any angle, even the review application does not make out any case for order dated 27th August, 2007 to be recalled. No merits in both the applications. Hence, both are dismissed. ( Chief Justice.) ( Chief Justice.) ( Chief Justice.) -3- (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)