1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. REVIEW APPLICATION NO.: 60 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.: 1633 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. REVIEW APPLICATION NO.: 60 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.: 1633 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shri Pande for applicant/ original Respondent No.5. 2. It is apparent that this Court has not adjudicated upon any rights of the parties in the matter and has only directed Respondent No.1 State Government to prepone the date of hearing as interim relief was granted in January, 2011 and next date scheduled for hearing was 13th November, 2011. 2. Shri Pande contends that after receipt of copy of petition he learnt from his client that petitioner before this Court was not the complainant as alleged by him and also is not affected by interim orders. His contention is, he is trying to get undue benefit because of orders passed by this Court and is trying to add himself to the proceeding before 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. REVIEW APPLICATION NO.: 60 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.: 1633 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Respondent No.1. 3. It is apparent that this Court has not adjudicated even status of the original petitioner or then the contentions being raised by Review Application in the present matter. If original petitioner is trying to obtain any such advantage the review applicant can raise objection to the same by pointing out all these facts to Respondent No.1. 4. As I see none of the contentions and rights of the present review applicant are adversely affected by the impugned order, review application is rejected. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:25/03/2011. ans/60