1 ca 10811.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10811 OF 2008 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2375 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2491 OF 1992 Shaikh Maheboob S/o Shaikh Nanhe .. Applicant Versus 1. Shaikh Ali S/o Shaikh Ahmed and others .. Respondents Shri T. W. Pathan, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri P. R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate h/f Shri S. G. Rudrawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Smt. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1-a to 1-c. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Shri Pathan, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel holding for Shri S. G. Rudrawar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Smt. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1-a to 1-c. 2 ca 10811.08 2. It appears that the writ petition was filed by Shaikh Ali Shaikh Ahmad against the judgment and order dated 10.06.1992 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, wherein the revision filed by him against the judgment of the Deputy Collector, Nanded, confirming the judgment of Additional Tahsildar, Nanded holding that Shaikh Nanhe S/o Shaikh Fakir is the protected tenant of the suit land Sy. No. 77 was dismissed. During the pendency of writ petition Shaikh Nanhe died and his legal representatives i. e. the respondent Nos. 1-a to 1-c in the writ petition were brought on record. Thereafter, the present applicant appeared and he was brought on record as respondent No. 1-d. The petitioner in the writ petition and respondent Nos. 1-a to 1-c and the subsequent purchasers compromised the matter and in view of said compromise the writ petition was disposed of. However, the matter was not compromised with respondent No. 1-d. The matter could not have been disposed of as against the respondent No. 1-d, as the same was not compromised. That the present civil application is filed by the original respondent No. 1-d in the writ petition. 3. Taking into account the above conspectus and facts, it is manifest that the writ petition could not have been finally 3 ca 10811.08 disposed of without passing any orders as against the respondent No. 1-d in the said writ petition. 4. The writ petition was already compromised by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1-a to 1-c. The said compromise was read and recorded by the Court. The said compromise does not seem to have been challenged. However, as no orders were passed against the present applicant who was respondent No. 1-d in the writ petition, the order disposing of the writ petition as against the present applicant deserves to be recalled and is as such recalled. The writ petition is restored as against the respondent No. 1-d. The civil application is accordingly disposed of. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11