1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No.1020 of 2010 In Civil Revision Application No.41 of 2009 (Decided on 14-6-2010) (Khamgaon Rashtriya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Buldhana, and another v. Tilak Rashtriya Vidyalaya) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri Anjan De, Advocate for Applicants. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 25 th October, 2010 By this revision application, the applicants are seeking review of the judgment and order dated 14-6-2010 passed by this Court in Civil Revision Application No.41 of 2009. The said civil revision application was admitted on 23-7-2009 and thereafter it was heard on merits and dismissed by the judgment and order dated 14-6-2010. This Court has held that no illegality or perversity was found in the order passed by the Trial Court. Shri De, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, has urged that the civil revision application itself was not maintainable and hence this Court should not have entertained and decided the said civil revision application. He submits that merely because the applicants had filed the civil revision 2 application, that does not confer the jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain and decide the said revision. In short, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the civil revision application should have been dismissed as not maintainable. The applicants had themselves invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and the matter was admitted on 23-7-2009 and subsequently it was decided by the impugned judgment and order on merits. In view of this, no case is made out for review. If it is the case of the applicants that the impugned judgment and order passed by this Court in the civil revision application is rendered null and void, then it will be open for them to raise such point in appropriate proceedings, which shall be considered in accordance with law. However, I do not find that this can be ground for review of the judgment and order passed by this Court in the civil revision application. In view of this, the Misc. Civil Application is dismissed. Judge pdl