1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7599 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2168 OF 2008. State Bank of India ... Applicant. Versus Vinay G.Bathiya and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.A.Kulkarni, advocate for the applicant. Mr.A.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent No.1 ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 28.08.2009. PER COURT 1. This is an application seeking recalling of the order rendered by this Court in W.P.No.2168/2008, along with C.A.No.602/2009. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 3. Mr.Kulkarni, would submit that the Writ Petition ought to have been placed before Division Bench of this Court in view of the amendment to the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side, Rules 1960. The learned advocate would submit that the judgment of this Court is required to be recalled because the petition was not maintainable before the Single Bench in view of such amendment to the High Court (A.S.) Rules. Mr.Deshmukh, would submit that the DRT, Aurangabad has acted upon directions of this Court and has condoned the delay and notices are ordered to be issued. 4. There is no controversy about the fact that Rule 18(3) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court (A.S.), Rules 1960 is amended and the necessary notification is published in the Government Gazette dated 23.11.2006. The Writ Petition should have been, of-course, placed before the Division Bench in view of the amended position of the Rules. The Bombay High Court (A.S.) Rules, 1960 deal with distribution of the Court business amongst the Benches in accordance 3 with the norms which are fixed. 5. Though the petition was wrongly placed before this Court and ordinarily should have been enlisted before the Division Bench, yet, the error was not pointed out at the relevant time by either side. In other words, the parties to the petition acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Single Bench. The Writ jurisdiction available under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is available to all the Benches, may be a Single Bench or may be a Division Bench, and that the judgment rendered by this Court can not be regarded as a judgment without jurisdiction. It is well settled that there may be error within the jurisdiction and there may be error outside the jurisdiction. In this context, when the error is within the jurisdiction, the judgment or order does not become nullity. So, if at all there has occurred error due to wrong placement of the petition before the Single Bench and that final decision is rendered then also the same can not be treated as nullity and no necessary step is required to be taken for recalling of the 4 same. Mr.Kulkarni, invited my attention to the "State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Presiding Officer and others" 2007 (1) Bom.C.R.205. A Single Bench of this Court held that the consent or acquisition can not give jurisdiction to a Court if it does not possess one. There can not be two opinion about the proposition of law as laid down in the given case. In the present case, however, this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, and there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction as such. Therefore, the observations in the above referred case are of no application to the present case. The application is dismissed. 6. Ad-interim relief granted be continued for four (4) weeks at the request of learned advocate Mr.Kulkarni. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Ca256909