1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application No. 5303/2008 (M.S.E.D.C.L. VERSUS Narendrakumar Virendrakumar Baid & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri R.E.Moharir, counsel for the applicant. Shri M.P. Khajanchi, counsel for all the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 20, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The counsel for the non-applicants has opposed the prayer made in the civil application. However, for the reasons stated in the civil application, the delay in filing the review application is condoned. The civil application is allowed and disposed of. M.C.A. (REVIEW) ST. NO. 10486/2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 It is stated in the application that the Writ Petition No.4676/2007 was listed before this Court for admission on 23.04.2008. It is further stated in the application that the learned counsel for the applicant, however, failed to note the matter in the cause list and, therefore, was not able to remain present in the Court. It is stated in the application that in this background, it is necessary to grant an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The prayer made in the miscellaneous civil application for setting aside the order dated 23.04.2008, is strongly opposed by the counsel for the non-applicant. The counsel for the non-applicant submitted that this Court has decided the writ petition on merits and there is no error whatsoever, much less, an error apparent on the face of record so as to set aside the order in a review application. 3 However, since the counsel for the applicant had failed to mark the matter, and hence, was not able to appear before the Court on 23.04.2008, it is necessary to hear the learned counsel for the applicant on the merits of the case also. On hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that no ground has been made out for setting aside the order dated 23rd April, 2008. The review application is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE