{1} CA No.9222/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9222 OF 2011 IN REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO.9437 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2879 OF 2011 Jaysing Namdeo Patil APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.M.Gholap, Advocate for the applicant Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 5 th AUGUST 2011 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant / original petitioner seeks condonation of delay on 262 days in filing review application. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGP, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. In the light of averments made in the application, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B11/ca9222-11 {2} CA No.9222/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO.9437 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2879 OF 2011 Jaysing Namdeo Patil APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.M.Gholap, Advocate for the applicant Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 5 th AUGUST 2011 PER COURT: 1. Since we have condoned the delay in filing this review application, Registry to register this application. We have heard this application at the request of learned counsel for the parties, though this application was not on board. We have heard Mr.A.M.Gholap, learned counsel for the appellant and we have perused the order passed by us, dated 16.06.2010. Mr.Gholap, in support of various grounds raised in the review application, has urged before us that there is an error apparent on the face of record and, therefore, this Court should exercise its review {3} CA No.9222/2011 jurisdiction. We have perused the judgment as well as the documents which have been annexed to the present review application. Upon such perusal, according to us, no case for interference is made out and consequently, this review application fails and is dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B11/ca9222-11