1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2010 IN CA NO.11676/2009 IN CAST NO.23204/2009 IN CA NO.2606/2006 IN S.A.NO.169/2006 (Baburao s/o Bappasaheb Kokate and another vs. Bhimrao s/o Limbadas Kadam and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.Y.M.Khan, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. R.T.Deshmukh, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2 in SA. R.Nos. 3 & 4 served. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 25/8/2010 ... 1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Mr.Y.M.Khan, learned Counsel, submits that the order dt.26.3.2010 passed by this Court needs to be reviewed. There is good ground certificate signed by Mr.Khan, and not by earlier Advocate. 2. Learned Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2 invited my 2 attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of M.Poornachandran and another Vs. State of T.N.and others ( AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1285). The Apex Court has held, while moving review application, a no objection certificate from the Advocate on record in the appeal, is essential. Filing of no objection certificate would be the basis for him to come on record. The Apex Court, in the said case, observed, "the failure to obtain the no objection certificate from the erstwhile Counsel has disentitled him to file the review petition". 3. In another matter reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1005 ( T.N.Electricity Board and another V. N.Raju Reddiar and another ) the Apex Court observed, "it is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming of worthy and conducive to the profession is cropping up". 4. The decision in RCS No. 3 188/1997 by the judgment and decree dt.14.9.2000 was challenged in RCA No.150/2000 before the learned District Judge, Jalna. The said appeal was allowed by order dt.25.7.2005. Resultantly, the decree was set aside. It was this order, which was questioned in Second Appeal N.169/2006 which was pending for admission. Notices were issued and respondents caused their appearance. The matter, as could be seen, was not diligently attended and resultantly, Second Appeal was dismissed in default on 12th Feb.,2007. 5. C.A.No.2606/2007 for restoration of the said appeal was moved. It was called on 12th June, 2009, however, the slumber was repeated in not attending the same inviting its dismissal. Another C.A.No.11676/2009 seeking to condone 92 days delay was moved. It was also dismissed by order dt.26th March, 2010 of which review is sought. Learned Counsel in the application has stated in 4 the grounds, that the absence of the petitioner when the matter was called was not intentional but it was the fault of the Advocate who did not remain present. The Advocate even did not remain present to attend C.A.No. 2606/2010. The petitioners claim that they are poor agriculturist and matter relates to valuable landed property and they are fighting for justice since last ten years. Basically, RCS No. 239/1987 was seeking to challenge a compromise between the parties in the said litigation RCS No. 239/1987 to be invalid. 6. I do not see any good ground emerging in entertaining the review petition as there is nothing to display or portray discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or his Advocate. There is no sufficient reason explained for the absence on the dates referred above. The 5 review, in the set of above situation, does not indicate any decision on a question of law was erroneously given by this Court. Survey of above facts illustrate, the review petition lacks merit. No interference in the order under review. Review Petition dismissed. The observations to be restricted to the present cause. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/108-10rp