1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATIONS REVIEW NO. 29 & 30 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION REVIEW NO. 29 OF 2007 MR. MOHANBHAI PREMABHAI TANDEL AND ANOTHER. ........... Applicants. V/s MR. RAVINDRA NAVELKAR & ORS. .......... Respondents. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the applicants/org. Respondents No.20 & 21. Mr. S. M. Walawaikar, Advocate for the original petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. Rakhi Chodankar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the org. respondent No.4. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate for the org. respondent No.5. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the org. respondents No.6 and 7. Mr. Sarvesh Malyekar, Advocate for the org. respondents No.8 to 12, 16, 19, 27 and 28. Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the org. respondents No. 14 and 15. CIVIL APPLICATION REVIEW NO. 30 OF 2007 MR. MAHESH RAJARAM AMONKAR AND OTHERS. . ........... Applicants. V/s MR. RAVINDRA NAVELKAR & ORS. .......... Respondents. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the applicants/org. Respondents No.13, 25 & 26. Mr. S. M. Walawaikar, Advocate for the original petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. Rakhi Chodankar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the org. respondent No.4. 2 Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate for the org. respondent No.5. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the org. respondents No.6 and 7. Mr. Sarvesh Malyekar, Advocate for the org. respondents No.8 to 12, 16, 19, 27 and 28. Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the org. respondents No. 14 and 15. CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & N.A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 06, 2008. ORAL ORDER : Heard Mr. Sonak for the applicants/org. Respondents No.20 & 21 in Review Application No. 29/07 and the applicants/org. Respondents No.13, 25 & 26 in Review Application No.30/07, Mr. Walawaikar for the original petitioners, the learned Advocate General for the org. respondent No.4, Mr. Nadkarni for the org. respondent No.5, Mr. Rivonkar for the org. respondents No.6 and 7, Mr. Malyekar for the org. respondents No.8 to 12, 16, 19, 27 and 28 and Mr. Naik, for the org. respondents No. 14 and 15. The other respondents though served, are not present. 2. These are the applications for review of the Order dated 4.9.07, passed in Writ Petition No.415/07, solely on the ground that some of the respondents in the said writ petition, including the applicants herein were not served before passing the said order. Upon hearing the learned Advocates, 3 and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the applicants herein and some of the respondents were not served and this was not brought to the notice of the Court when the order dated 4.9.07 was passed. Since, by the order dated 4.9.07 the learned Arbitrator was appointed to decide the dispute and stated to have been decided by consent and as the record discloses that some of the respondents were not served and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court while passing the said order, the applicants are justified in contending that the order dated 4.9.07 needs to be reviewed. Accordingly, the order 4.9.2007 needs to be recalled and the Writ Petition No.415/2007 requires to be restored to the Board and fixed for hearing on admission. 3. Accordingly, both the review applications are, hereby, allowed. The order dated 4.9.2007 is, hereby, recalled and the Writ Petition No.415/2007 is restored to the Board and directed to be placed for hearing on admission on 18.2.2008. The review applications are disposed of. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm