1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4409 OF 2009 Shri Chandrakant Baburao Jagtap and ors .. Petitioners Vs Shri Ramchandra Tukaram Jagtap and ors. .. Respondents Mr.J.D.Khairnar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.P.Kakade, AGP, for the Respondents. Mr A.B.Avhad, for respondent nos 1 to 3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 23/07/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive service. Petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned an order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhor Division, Pune, by which the review application filed by T 2 respondent nos 1 to 3 has been allowed. In the review application, respondent nos 1 to 3 challenged two orders dated 24.7.2006 and 10.7.2008, both, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhor Division, Pune (for short, “the SDO”). By the order dated 24.7.2006, the S.D.O had dismissed the appeal filed by respondent nos 1 to 3 on the ground of delay. That order was challenged in the review after more than two years and it was rejected vide order dated 10.7.2008, holding that the S.D.O had no powers to review its own order dated 24.7.2006. It is against this backdrop, respondent nos 1 to 3 filed another review, which came to be allowed vide order dated 10.2.2009, impugned in the petition. This order, in my opinion, deserves to be set aside on two grounds: firstly it was passed without hearing the petitioners, and secondly, on the ground that the second review was not maintainable. Mr Avhad, learned counsel for the respondents, invited my attention to Roznama dated 7.2.2005 and submitted that the delay was already condoned and the appeal was admitted and hence the order dated 24.7.2006 was wrong. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 24.7.2006 was passed in the appeal filed by respondent nos 1 to 3, holding that the appeal was barred by limitation. That order dated 24.7.2006 was not challenged by respondent nos 1 to 3 in further proceedings and they chose to file two review applications after 3 more than two years. The review applications were based on the notings in the Roznama. Admittedly, there is no order on record to show that the delay was, in fact, condoned, as recorded in the Rozanam dated 7.2.2005. In the circumstances, this petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 10.2.2009 is set aside. This shall not preclude respondent nos 1 to 3 from challenging the order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the S.D.O in appropriate proceedings as may be available in law. If any such proceeding is instituted by respondent nos 1 to 3, the concerned authority shall consider and decide it in accordance with law. This observation is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners to oppose such proceedings on the grounds, as may be advised and available in law. All contentions of the parties are kept open. While making this observation, I shall not be understood to have issued any direction to the concerned authority, that will be dealing with the proceedings,if instituted by respondent nos 1 to 3. Rule is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 4