1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3921 OF 1996 Keshav Hiraman Kamble .... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS WITH REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 77 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3922 OF 1996 Ramesh Chokhaji Sakate .... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.D.Rakh, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. ............................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 09/08/2010 ORDER ORDER : 1. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned came to be passed when the petitioner did not have an 2 opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that due to the personal difficulty of the counsel, who was engaged before the other Court, the petitioner could not represent the case properly and as such the order need to be reviewed. 2. It appears from the perusal of the order that the contentions of the petitioners were not placed before the Court. It is settled law that on account of negligence on the part of the counsel, the party should not suffer. 3. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow review the petitions. The orders under review are recalled. The petitions are restored to file. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/CA 76.07 in WP 3921...........96 3 1. Both the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner do not want to prosecute the petitions. 3. The petitions are, therefore, disposed off as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Rule is discharged. In view disposal of Writ Petitions, Civil Applications does not survives, as such disposed off.