1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.297/2008 In Letters Patent Appeal No.351/2007 In Writ Petition No.3654/2007 (Decided) [Nanuram Mohanlal Varma .vrs. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Akola] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. N.M. Varma, the applicant in person, Mr. S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for the respondent. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND R.V. MORE, JJ DATED : JULY 4, 2008 1. Heard Mr. N.M Varma, the applicant in person and Mr. S.C. Mehadia, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The applicant in person has preferred this application for review of the order dated 28th February, 2008. The ground on which this application is filed is that the observation of the Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Limited .vrs. K.P. Agrawal, F.L.R 2007 Vol. 112 page 1049, are not 2 considered in proper perspective while disposing of the above Letters Patent Appeal No.351/2007. In addition to this, it was also tried to contend that the Division Bench failed to consider the grounds taken by the applicant in Letters Patent Appeal. Both the grounds on which review is sought, we apprehend, are not sustainable in law. In short, the contention of the applicant seems to be that the order under review is erroneous order and it is not the contention of the applicant that error of law apparent on the face of record has been committed. In our considered view, the applicant can make grievance to superior Court on the ground that the order is erroneous, however, he cannot maintain review application. No case is made out for interference. The application for review is dismissed. 3. At this stage, Mr. Varma, the applicant in person, prays for extension of stay order granted by this court for the period of eight weeks by order dated February 28, 2008. Mr. S.C. Mehadia, the learned counsel for the respondent, opposes the prayer. Since we have dismissed the applicant's application for review today, the interest of justice, will be served if this stay order is extended for further eight weeks from today. It is made clear that no further extension will be granted. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande