1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 388 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4348 OF 2002 (Yavatmal Islamiya Anglo Urdu Education Society & Anr. vs. Smt. Naseem Bano Syed Asgar Ali & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. JULY 18, 2009. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Joharapurkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 25th August 2008 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay committed by the appellants in complying with the order dated 11.10.2004 and consequently to restore Writ Petition No. 4348 of 2002 along with the interim order dated 10.3.2003 by setting aside the order of non compliance dated 11.10.2004. On perusal of the records we find that there was a specific order passed dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for non compliance of the order dated 11.10.2004. It is further an 2 admitted position that a Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the said order dated 11.10.2004 had also been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. In view of the said dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, the question of appellant preferring an application before the learned Single Judge for restoration of writ petition would not arise at all as entertaining an application to that effect would amount to seeking a review of the order dated 31.3.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 113 of 2005. On perusal of said order, we find that despite an opportunity was given to the management to comply with the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the appellants were not prepared to comply with such directions. As such there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order as appellants were not entitled to file the said application. In view of the above, the present Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be entertained and consequently the same stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.