:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1478 OF 2008 Shri Momin Abdul Kalam Abdul Rahim @ Asharfi ...Petitioner Versus Shri Ansari Jamil Ahmed Rehman and Ors,. ...Respondents Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar i./by. Mr.Ramesh A.Kavale, Adv. for the petitioners. ’ Mr.Tanaji Mhatugadeh h/f. Mr. A.V.Anturkar Adv. for respondent no.3. Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, AGP for respondent no.10. CORAM; S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 19TH MARCH, 2008 P.C. : 1. The Election Petition filed by the present petitioner to challenge the election of the Returned Candidate, Respondent no.3 is pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane. In the Election Petition No.29 of 2007, the petitioner applied by an Application (Exhibit-18) for amendment to the Election Petition which was allowed on 18.8.2007. :2: 2. That order was sought to be reviewed and recalled at the instance of the Returned Candidate. By the impugned order, the Order of amendment is reviewed and the Amendment Application preferred by the petitioner, is dismissed. 3. That is how, this Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After having heard learned Counsel appearing for parties, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge was in clear error in reviewing his order allowing amendment. The order does not suffer from any error apparent nor there was any other reason for recalling and reviewing it. In the instant case, what the petitioner had prayed is that the amendment is inconcous, inasmuch as, it did not amount to introducing any new ground or cause for setting aside the Election, but, it was for correcting a typographical error. The respondent no.3 placed reliance upon the Decisions of the Supreme Court which have been rendered under the Representation of Peoples :3: Act, 1951. Merely because reliance was placed upon some decision and Section 81 of the Representation of Peoples Act, is no ground to review the order. Further, any apprehension of the Returned Candidate could have been taken care of, by clarifying that merely because the Amendment is allowed, does not mean that all contentions with regard to the Amendment or the same becoming operative, are concluded subject to the same being kept open, the Amendment could have been granted. 5. The order dated 31.1.2008 is therefore quashed and set aside. The Amendment Application is granted. However, whether the amendment relates back to the date of the filing of the Original Election Petition or not, is a matter which is kept open for being considered at an appropriate stage. All contentions of both sides in that behalf are kept open. The Trial Court to examine all pleas, when deciding the Election Petition. 6. Subject to this clarification, the Writ Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. :4: *********