-: 1 :- rpw-55/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 55 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1971 OF 2011 Prabhakar Y. Kulkarni. ..Petitioner. Versus Sarvajanik Vachnalaya & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Makarand Panchakshari i/b Mr. Chaten Damare for the petitioner. Mr. P. B. Shah for R-1 to 3. Mr. Sagar Kasar for R-4. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for R-5. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : September 15, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This review petition is filed by respondent no.1 in writ petition. The review petitioner contends that clause (ii) in the operative part of order dated 3/5/2011 is uncalled for in view of the fact that the petitioners in writ petition have restricted their petition to the relief claimed in prayer clause (b) only. It is submitted that in second line in 2nd paragraph on 2nd page of the order dated 3/5/2011, it is inadvertently mentioned that srp -: 2 :- rpw-55/11 “The petitioners have restricted their petition to the relief claimed in terms of prayer clause (d)” in stead of “prayer clause (b)”. Therefore, learned counsel also submitted that this typographical error needs to be corrected accordingly. 3. By the prayer clause (a) of the petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 3/3/2011 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner below Application No. 2 of 2011. Prayer clause (c) of the writ petition is as follows : “(c) by a suitable writ, order or direction this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the application submitted by petitioner no.3 under section 73A of the Act which is pending” 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that the petitioners in writ petition have restricted their petition to the relief claimed in prayer clause (b) only, the direction contained in clause (ii) of operative part of the order dated 3/5/2011 could not have been given. There is substance in the contention of the review petitioner in this regard. Respondents also have no objection if this review petition is allowed so as to recall clause (ii) of the operative part of the order dated 3/5/2011. In these circumstances, -: 3 :- rpw-55/11 review petition is disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (a) Clause (ii) of operative part of the order dated 3/5/2011 passed in above Writ Petition is recalled. (b) In second line in 2nd paragraph no.2 on page of the order dated 3/5/2011, in place of “prayer clause (d)” it should be read as “prayer clause (b).” (RANJIT MORE, J.)