GPN-J-332-ARHCB-8_94-13,10,500-ALA4. SPL.H.C.A.S.C.D. 79e. FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 391 OF 2005 IN REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 22296 OF 2004 PETITION ST. NO. 22296 OF 2004 PETITION ST. NO. 22296 OF 2004 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4759 OF 2001 PETITION NO. 4759 OF 2001 PETITION NO. 4759 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- Office Notes, Office Memorada Court‘s or Judge‘s orders or directions and Orders. Registrar‘s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shri C.T.Chandratre for the petitioner. Shri R.M.Patne AGP for the State. CORAM; CORAM; CORAM; V.G. PALSHIKAR & V.G. PALSHIKAR & V.G. PALSHIKAR & V.M. V.M. V.M. KANADE, JJ. KANADE, JJ. KANADE, JJ. DTAED; DTAED; DTAED; 11TH MARCH, 2005 11TH MARCH, 2005 11TH MARCH, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Civil Application for condonation of delay is allowed. Review petition is taken up. Heard counsel. 2. The typographical error regarding the year is hereby corrected as ‘1995’ instead of ‘1975’. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order impugned or sought to be reviewed. The contention that the judgment delivered by us is inconsistent with the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 S.C. page 2415. Apart from the facts in which finding was recorded by the Supreme Court are different than those involved in the present petition. It would be an error of law which can be corrected in appeal only. No error apparent on the face of record is committed empowering this court to review the earlier order. Review Petition is therefore dismissed. ....