1 RA 184.2010 in W.P. 754.2008 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 754 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. Pravin P. Yadav, Advocate holding for Mr. M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for Resp. No. 6. Mr. R.N.Bharaswadkar, Advocate for Resp. No. 7. ................................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :14/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. The applicant/petitioner had filed Writ Petition against the order of the Divisional Jt. Registrar rejecting his application for condonation of delay. This Court vide Order dated 13/04/2009 dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present Review Application is filed. 2 RA 184.2010 in W.P. 754.2008 2. Mr. V.D. Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court while dismissing the Writ Petition, had wrongly observed that the petitioner has only filed prescription showing that he was suffering from HIV positive and no medical certificate is produced. The same was an error apparent on the face of record. The petitioner had filed medical certificate before the revisional Court and also before this Court. But, the same was not considered and it was only stated that only the prescription is filed. As this is an error apparent on the face of record, the order deserves to be reviewed. 3. This Court while passing Order dated 13/04/2009 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 754 of 2008, had not only relied upon the ground of the petitioner suffering from HIV positive, but it also considered other aspects of the matter i.e. the wife of the petitioner had filed various applications stating that she was ready to pay the remaining amount. Even the petitioner was present when the house property was attached and was taken over by the bank and the Court on that ground held that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings of attachment and recovery. 4. This Court while deciding the review application, can not sit as an appellate authority over the order passed. The jurisdiction of review U/s 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure is in narrow compass. 3 RA 184.2010 in W.P. 754.2008 5. In view of the above, the review application is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/RA 184.2010 in W.P. 754.2008 4 RA 184.2010 in W.P. 754.2008