1 Ca39-11 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2008 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 142 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8141 OF 2007 Vinay A. Rathi. ... Applicant. V/s. Ramgopal Gupta & Ors. ... Respondents. Applicant in person. None for respondent. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 7th MARCH, 2011 P.C. 1. This civil application is filed for setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on November 25, 2010. The Division Bench in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant rejected the Letters Patent appeal on the ground that the same is not maintainable. The Applicant party in person prays that since the order is passed in his absence, the Letters Patent Appeal be restored to file. 2 So far the restoration of the Letters Patent Appeal is concerned, since the learned counsel for the appellant was not present, there would have otherwise been no difficulty. 2 Ca39-11 However, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment in the Appeal the learned Single Judge had rejected the review petition no. 142 of 2007. So far as the rejection of the review petition is concerned, the Division Bench merely found that it is not maintainable. In this behalf, reference is required to be made to Order 43 Rule 1(w) which provides as under :- O.43 Rule 1 :- Appeals from orders- An Appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section1 104, namely- (a) ------- (w) an order under rule 4 of order XLVII granting an application for review. 3. Thus, the learned Division Bench rightly held that the Letters Patent Appeal against review is not maintainable. Considering the provisions of Order 43 rule 1(w) and the analogy deducible in this behalf, we are not inclined to grant the prayer for restoring Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, the civil application is rejected. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)