1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.165 OF 2008 1. Eknath s/o Raghunath Khandre died through his L.Rs. A) Ganesh Eknath Khandre and ors. .. Applicants Versus Kachru s/o Raghunath Khandre and others ..Respondents Mr.M.A.Manjramkar, Advocate for applicants Mr.V.D.Patnoorkar, Advocate for respondent No.1 in S.A. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 8th July 2010 PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The review application has made several factually incorrect statements. On 11th January 2010, Mr.M.D.Shinde, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants filed circulation note seeking early hearing of the appeal for admission. At his request, the appeal was posted for arguments on admission. Accordingly, the appeal was heard but it could not be said that Mr.Shinde was not instructed to argue the appeal on merits. It cannot also be said that Mr.Shinde, on that day was instructed only to seek adjournment. Mr.Manjramkar’s vakalatnama was not on record on that day. Since the circulation note insisted that the appeal should be heard for admission, it was accordingly heard. 2 3. In view of this, it was insignificant on that day as to whether copies of civil application No.13425 of 2009 were served on the respondents or not. In other words, the appellant’s Advocate, on that day did not insist on hearing of the civil application but insisted as said above, on hearing of the appeal for admission. The review should, therefore, fail. The review application stands rejected. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) (vvr/42.10ra)