( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1529 OF 2009 WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 19756 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 187 OF 2003 Madhukar s/o Dattatraya Tekale APPLICANT VERSUS Kondabaji s/o Shamrao Bhusare and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. These are applications for condonation of delay and review of order rendered by this Court, dated 17-07-2007 whereby Second Appeal No. 187/2003 came to be dismissed. 2. Heard counsel. ( 2 ) 3. The delay is of 21 days. According to the applicant, there was delay due to his inability to arrange for expenditure required to file the review application and was unable to move out of the house due to illness. The applicant has filed copy of the medical certificate issued by Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Wanoda. It appears that he was suffering from illness since 15th July, 2008 till 18th September, 2008. Thus, the explanation stated in the application for condonation of delay is reasonable and requires to be appreciated. I accept the same and condone the delay. The civil application is allowed. 4. So far as the review application is concerned, it emerges from the record that Mr. Chincholkar G.N. did not represent the applicant when the second appeal came to be dismissed. The review application is normally required to be filed by the same advocate who represented the applicant on the earlier occasion. The Apex Court in “Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another v. N. Raju Reddiar and another” (1997) 9 SCC 736, ( 3 ) deprecated the practice of filing review application by some other lawyer. It is held : “Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the Advocate-on- Record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.” 5. Mr. Chincholkar would submit that ownership of the applicant was admitted by the other side and, therefore, dismissal of the suit was improper. He would submit that such vital admission of the defendant No. 1 was not considered and, therefore, there is patent error apparent on face of record. I find it difficult to countenance the argument. The suit was for injunction simplicitor. Whether the applicant is owner of the suit land or he is not concerned with the same, are not the ( 4 ) issues involved. The pertinent issue in suit for injunction is in respect of factum of possession as on the date of suit. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the respondents were in possession and, therefore, the injunction could not be clamped on them. These are findings of facts. No substantial question of law was involved in the second appeal and apparently, there is no patent error or the misreading of the relevant evidence. Hence, the review application is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/ca1529-09