1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDCITION REVIEW PETITION NO.34 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1834 OF 2007 Heeralal son of Murlidhar Chaturvedi .... Petitioner. V/s The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others .... Respondents. ---- Mr. H.S. Chandanani i/b Lexim Associates for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Joshi for Respondent No.1 (BMC). Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar with Mr. R.V. Pawaskar for respondent No.2. ----- CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & V.M.KANADE, J. Order reserved on : 20/02/2009 Order pronounced on: 07/05/209 ORAL ORDER: ( Per V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner seeks review of the order passed by this Court dated 11 th June, 2008. In the said Writ Petition, the 2 following order was passed:- “ P.C:- The counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the petition with liberty to take steps including the amendment of the suit, filing an appeal within the meaning of section 47 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 and any such remedy as may be available in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. CHIEF JUSTICE V. M. KANADE, J.” 3. Petitioner has now filed this review petition submitting that the said order may be withdrawn since the petitioner was made to withdraw the aforesaid petition in view of the submissions made by the respondents about the maintainability of the appeal under section 47 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner strenuously urged that the appeal under section 47 was not maintainable. He also submitted that the suit 3 which was pending in this Court also could not be amended since the subject matter of the said suit and the present Petition constitute separate and distinct causes of action and, therefore, it is not possible to amend the suit. Counsel for the petitioner ought to have considered this aspect before making an application for withdrawal of the Petition. Apart from submitting that the appeal under section 47 was not maintainable, no ground has been made out by the petitioner, pointing out any error of law apparent on record so as to recall the said order dated 11th June, 2008. Petitioner, having withdrawn the Petition, cannot seek now withdrawal of the said order since the Petition was allowed to be withdrawn on the statement being made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not now possible to recall the order. Review Petition is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.