1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CA No. 7279 of 2006 In MCA (St) No. 15254 of 2006 In WP No. 2061 of 1994 Kishorekumar v. Bhojraj and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr M.G. Bhangde, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr V.V. Bhangde, Adv for applicant Mr V.M. Deshpande, Adv for respdts 1 & 2 Coram: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A. P. BHANGALE, JJ Dated: 13th October 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Writ Petition No. 2061 of 1994 was disposed of by this Court on 19th June 2006 as not pressed by petitioners therein (present respondents no. 1 and 2) since they agreed for Development Rights Certificate in lieu of compensation for acquiring their lands. 3. It appears that alleging an agreement for sale with original petitioners, present applicant Kishorekumar has filed Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 2001 for its specific performance and in that suit, on 20th June 2002, 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati passed an order after hearing both parties to suit and directed them to maintain status-quo in respect of title 2 of suit property till further orders. 4. According to learned Senior Advocate, this suit and order passed therein were not pointed out to this Court in WP No. 2061 of 1994 and hence, in absence of knowledge of rights of present applicant, Writ Petition was allowed to be withdrawn. 5. Mr V.M. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2 (original petitioners) has contended that said special civil suit and orders therein are totally irrelevant in so far as Writ petition No. 2061 of 1994 or its disposal is concerned. He contends that alleged agreement between parties is denied by respondents no. 1 and 2. He also invites attention to the order dated 16.6.2006 passed by 2nd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Amravati on whose file the suit was then pending to show that on said date because of dilatory tactics adopted by applicant Kishorekumar, the direction to maintain status-quo was vacated. In these circumstances, it is his contention that applicant has got other remedy in the matter and present effort to file review of an order passed in writ petition which has been withdrawn and to which present applicant was not party, is misconceived. 6. It is not necessary for this Court to consider the issue of locus or status of applicant at this stage. The only prayer is to permit the applicant to file application for review. Applicant herein appears to be a person who has filed Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 2001 claiming specific performance of contract and it also appears that on 20th June 2002, an order directing him and respondents no. 1 and 2 to maintain status-quo in relation to 3 title of suit property, was already passed. Whether that order continues to operate or does not operate is again not relevant at this stage. Hence, in this situation, as we find that filing of special civil suit and passing of interim order therein was not pointed out to this Court on 19.6.2006 when orders were passed in the petition, we permit applicant to file review application. Civil Application No. 7279 of 2006 is accordingly allowed. Office to register MCA already filed and place it for appropriate consideration. Judge. Judge joshi