IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 646 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 2529 OF 2009 SANJITA UDAISING RANE SARDESSAI AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus RAJAN DESSAI AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Shri C. Mascarenhas, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri P. Bandodkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 28th July, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. On 26-3-2009 on a statement made by Shri C. Mascarenhas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 came to be deleted from cause title. The contention of the Petitioners is that they made an inadvertent mistake in deleting Respondent No.1 and the same came to the notice of the Petitioners on 13-7-2009, and, hence the application for condonation of delay as well as the application for review. Respondent No.1 has contested the application by filing a reply. I have perused the same. It is submitted that there was no relief sought against Respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition. That matter can be considered whilst disposing off the Writ Petition. Considering the facts of the case, and the averments in the application, the delay in filing the review application is condoned and the review application is also allowed, in that the Order dated 26-3-2009 is reviewed in that only the names of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall stand deleted. In other words, Respondent No.1 shall continue to remain as party Respondent in the Writ Petition. Both the applications are accordingly disposed off. Writ Petition Nos.188 of 2009 and 103 of 2009 to be heard at admission stage for final disposal. Amendments to be carried out forthwith. Shri Usgaonkar accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in both the petitions. Shri P. Bandodkar accepts notice for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Writ Petition No.103 of 2009. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.