1 Cac-14.11group Ash FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION a CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 603 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 137 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 611 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 604 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 605 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 606 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 607 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 608 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 609 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 610 OF 2010 ALONGWITH 2 Cac-14.11group CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 612 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 613 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 614 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 615 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 616 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 476 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 28 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 617 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 29 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 618 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 619 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 620 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 32 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 621 OF 2010 ALONGWITH 3 Cac-14.11group CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 622 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 623 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 35 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 624 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 474 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 37 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 625 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 626 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 627 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 628 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 629 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 630 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 631 OF 2010 4 Cac-14.11group ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 632 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Mr.Omar Khaiyam Shaikh, for the applicant in all matters. Mr. Jitendra G. Damani for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all matters. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. On 20th December, 2010, several civil applications were decided by this Court by a common order. The said civil applications were taken out by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the revision applications. While disposing of the revision applications, this Court heard Shri Mohan Kumar appearing for the revision applicants in some of the revision applications. By these applications, it is pointed out that in certain civil applications which were decided by an order dated 20th December, 2010, Shri Mohan Kumar was not representing the revision 5 Cac-14.11group applicants and in fact, Shri Omar Khaiyam Shaikh was representing the revision applicants. It is contended that this Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that all the revision applicants were represented by Shri Mohan Kumar, Advocate. 3. Report of the Registry was called for. The report dated 15th February, 2011 of the Registry records that the applicants in these applications were being represented by Shri Omar Khaiyam Shaikh, Advocate in the revision applications. Thus, it appears that Shri Mohan Kumar did not represent the applicants in these applications. Therefore, the order dated 20th December, 2010 which is a common order passed in several civil applications will have to be recalled only in respect of those applications wherein Shri Omar Khaiyam Shaikh was representing the revision applicants. 4. Accordingly, the present civil applications are allowed in terms of the prayer clause (a). 5. The restored civil applications shall be placed before the appropriate Court. (A.S.OKA, J)