IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.587 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.587 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.587 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.17354 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.17354 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.17354 OF 2007 Chief Officer, Kurduwadi ) Municipal Council )..Petitioner Versus Nagnath Ambadas Shinde & Anr. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Balkrishna D.Joshi for the petitioner. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 11.03.2008. PC 1. The petitioner who is Chief Officer of Kurduwadi Municipal Council has filed the aforesaid review application for review of an order dated 9.2.2004 passed by me. By the order in respect of which review has been sought, this Court only accepted the Minutes of order signed by the Advocate for the petitioner and respondents dated 9.2.2004. A perusal of the order indicates that the same was signed by both the Advocates appearing before the Court. It is not the case of the applicant that the then Chief officer of Kurduwadi Municipal Council had not actually approved and instructed the Advocate to file the Minutes of order. It appears that for non compliance of the order dated 9.2.2004 a Contempt Petition has been filed and has been : 2 : admitted. The present review application has been filed after a delay of 3 years and 146 days. The only ground given is that the present Chief officer took charge in April-2007. There is no explanation for the delay caused between 9.2.2004 till April-2007. It is contended that the Chief officer was not permitted by law to compromise the matter. Reliance is placed upon the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayat & Industrial Townships Act 1965. The compromise in question was not recorded in the suit. According to me the cause shown does not amount to sufficient cause. Hence, Civil application stands rejected. 2. I may state over here that there is no document annexed to show that any action was taken against the Chief officer who has instructed the Advocate to file the Minutes. Advocate for the applicant states that direction may be given to take action against the Chief Officer. That would be beyond the scope of the present proceedings. 3. As the Civil Applicaton is dismissed, the review petition does not survive and also stands dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)