1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No.335/2008 In Letters Patent Appeal No.99/1996 In First Appeal No.256/1993 [Shankarrao Sakharam Supare .vrs. Dr. Rajendra Vithalrao Prakashe and others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND R.V. MORE, JJ DATED : APRIL 04, 2008 1. Heard the applicant in person and Mr. A.S. Sonare, the learned AGP for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5. 2. The applicant has moved the application for reviewing the order dated 22.2.2008 where-under this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.11.1996 passed in First Appeal No.256/1993, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and the matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge for deciding the same 2 on merit. 3. It was urged by the applicant that the order of the learned Single Judge is an appellate order under the provisions of sub-section 5 of section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is not an order under original jurisdiction and hence no appeal would lie against it under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act. The applicant relied on New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd .vrs. Orissa State Finance Corporation and others, (1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 462 in support of this submission. 4. It may be noted that, no doubt, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.11.1996 is an order in an appeal, however, the said appeal is not against the appellate order of any subordinate court, but is against the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner which is deemed to be a decree for the purposes of sub-section 5 of Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is thus obvious that letters patent appeal is perfectly tenable. No error apparent on the face of record is made out by the applicant. 3 5. It was further urged by the applicant that his counsel gave consent to set aside the impugned order dated 4.11.1996 without the consent by the applicant. It is difficult to believe this. If we believe this statement, there would be no end to the matter. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the review application. The same is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE GULANDE