1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 390/08 in W.P.No.3399/07 Smt. Durgabai wd/o Narayan Shesh and others vs. Shamrao Ganpat Kalbande and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE, J DATE OF RESERVING : 23.7.2008 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.7.2008 Heard Mr. A.R.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. J.S.Mokadam, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. T.A.Mirza, learned A.G.P. for respondents 3 to 6. 2. By this application the applicants seek review of the order dated 29.2.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3399/07 by which the applicants/petitioners were granted leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file suit seeking appropriate relief. 3. The petitioners by filing above petition challenged orders passed by various authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”). Advocate Mr. M.D.Zoting, appearing for petitioners was granted leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file suit for appropriate relief and consequently the petition was disposed of as withdrawn. 2` 4. The present petition has been filed on the ground that filing of suit is expressly barred under the provisions of the Act and the only remedy available to the applicants is by way of writ petition to this Court. Therefore, the applicants have sought review of the order dated 29.2.2008 on the ground that the petitioners desire to proceed with Writ Petition No. 3399/07. In support of the application Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for applicants has submitted that since the suit is expressly barred under Section 124 of the Act there is an error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as liberty granted to the petitioners to file suit for seeking appropriate relief is illusory and the only remedy available to the petitioners is by way of filing of the writ petition to this court. In support of his submission the learned counsel has relied upon several authorities. I do not deem it appropriate to refer to the same in view of the order which I propose to pass. 5. The application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Mokadam, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. T.A.Mirza, learned A.G.P. for respondents 3 to 6. According to the learned counsel the application itself is not maintainable since the applicants chose to withdraw the petition after the court was inclined to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the order dated 29.2.2008 discloses that Advocate Mr. M.D.Zoting appearing for the petitioners sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file suit for appropriate relief and this Court granted leave to the petitioners to withdraw the petition with liberty to file suit seeking appropriate relief. Nowhere in the application for 3` review the applicants have stated that Advocate Mr. M.D.Zoting who sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file suit seeking appropriate relief had made said prayer without any authority. This being the position once the petition was withdrawn by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and that too with liberty to file suit seeking appropriate relief I fail to understand how the applicants by approaching this court by engaging another lawyer can seek review of the said order. The application for review, therefore, is not maintainable. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/- in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Judge patle