ra52.11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEEW APPLICATION NO.52 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10534 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Mr.D.K. Kulkarni, Adv. for petitioner. Mr.K.B. Chaudhari, Adv. for Respondents. CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. 29th April, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2 This review application is filed seeking review of the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition. 3 On perusal of the order under review, it appears that on ra52.11 2 22.11.2010 when the petition was heard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that there are two establishments namely, Murgeshwar Farm and Yash Poultry which are separately registered. However, on 22.11.2010 the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment to produce on record some documents showing that both the establishments have been separately registered. However, on 23.11.2010, the learned Counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that Murgeshwar Farm is not registered at all. Therefore, this Court, taking cognizance of the contradictory statements, on 23.11.2010 observed that the person approaching the Court should approach with clean hands and the petition came to be dismissed mainly on the ground that the Counsel for the petitioner made contradictory statements on 22.11.2010 and 23.11.2010 about the registration of the Murgeshwar Farm. Though it is observed in the order under ra52.11 3 review that the petition is dismissed on account of making contradictory statements and on merits, after perusal of the order under review, I find that the petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that the Counsel for the petitioner made contradictory statements. 4 The learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed this application by filing reply stating therein that there is no any ground to review the order dated 23.11.2010. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, even on the date on which the order under review was passed, the Counsel for the petitioner was aware of the fact that two establishments are separately registered. Therefore, according to the Counsel for the respondents, this review application is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of ra52.11 4 the opinion that the order under review needs to be recalled. The petitioner has made a statement in the review application that due to his old age, he could not properly instruct the Counsel appearing on his behalf and as a result, on 23.11.2010 a statement was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Murgeshwar Farm is not registered at all, which is contrary to the record. In my opinion, ends of justice would meet if the review application is allowed and the Writ Petition No.10534/2010 is restored to its original position. 5 Accordingly, the order dated 23.11.2010 under review is recalled. The Writ Petition No. 10534 of 2010 is restored to its original position. The review application is disposed of in the above terms. Place the writ petition before regular Bench. (S.S. SHINDE, J) kadam/