:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1733 OF 2002 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1733 OF 2002 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1733 OF 2002 IN IN IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 1993 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 1993 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 1993 Jaykumar Sevaklal Bhanushali ..Applicant versus Kiran B. Ekhande & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ganesh Gole i/b. Mr. A. P. Mundargi for the Applicant. Mr. S. D. Thokade for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Y. S. Shinde, APP for the STate. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 19TH JULY,2005 DATE : 19TH JULY,2005 DATE : 19TH JULY,2005 ORAL ORDER : ORAL ORDER : ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for condoning delay in filing the Revision. Neither in this application for condonation of delay nor in the application for Revision there is any substance both legally or :2: factually. 3. I had passed an order on 9.11.2001 after hearing Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned APP. It is an order on merits. The present application is filed for Review though it is termed as Revision or an application for setting aside that order. It is not maintainable. Secondly, there is delay in filing this application. But the question of condoning the delay does not arise in this matter because the very application against the impugned order is not maintainable. Impugned order in the Revision is in respect of show cause notice. The result in the revision is that the applicant has to show cause to the said notice. It does not affect the merits nor right of the applicant to agitate his grievance before the appropriate court. 4. In view of the above, Criminal Application as well as Criminal Revision Application both stands dismissed. 19.7.2005 (D.G. DESHPANDE, J.)