1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4020 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1478 OF 2010. Vithal Sahebrao Kapse & ors. ...APPLICANTS. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri R.R. Mantri, Advocate for applicants. Shri V.D. Godbharle, Advocate for R.No.1 to 3. ... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 31st MARCH, 2010. PER COURT: We heard learned Counsel Mr. Mantri for the applicants. 2 This is civil application seeking review of the order dated 25th February, 2010. The civil application was filed on 22nd March, 2010. One of the Honourable Judges, namely Honourable Mr. 2 Justice S.S. Shinde, who is party to the order dated 25th February, 2010 is available at Aurangabad. This Court, therefore, directed the Registry to constitute a Bench of which Justice S.S. Shinde is a member. That’s how, this Bench is constituted and this review application is placed before this Bench. After the application was filed on 22nd March, 2010, Registry had placed this matter before the reconstituted Bench on 29th March, 2010. On that day, the Special Bench constituted for the said purpose was not available. Therefore, the matter was placed for hearing on 30th March, 2010. Mr. Mantri submitted that separate Board was published and there was confusion in the mind of the present applicants. That’s how, neither the applicants nor their advocate were present. The record shows that on 30th March, 2010 the matter was called out. The Court Associate informed that separate Board was prepared. Even though none appeared for the applicants, this Court did not pass adverse order, and in the interest of justice, the matter was 3 adjourned to 31st March, 2010 at 2.30 p.m. 3 In this background today we have heard learned Counsel Mr. Mantri for the applicant and the learned A.G.P. Mr. Godbharle for respondents No.1 to 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel, we have seen the prayers made in the application. The first prayer (A) is for allowing the application. By prayer (B) the applicants seek to recall/modify the order dated 25th February, 2010 to the extent it directs disposal of the OA No. 763/2009, not later than 15th April, 2010 or in the alternative extend the same by six months. Further prayer (C) is made that affidavit may be dispensed with. 4 Mr. Mantri, learned Counsel for the applicants expressed the difficulties for the applicants. He has read over the entire order passed by this Court on 25th February, 2010 before us. 5 Review is a matter principally governed by 4 Section 114 r.w. Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The litigants are filing various applications virtually seeking review. However, terminology used differs from case to case. Some times, they are asking recalling of the order, some times they are seeking review of the order, some times they are requesting for modification of the order. This has been noticed by this Court, not only across the State of Maharashtra, but beyond that, however, within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. One such case was before the Division Bench of this Court at Panji Bench in the matter of Ganesh Penzoplast Ltd. vs. Board of Trustees of Mormugao Port Trust [2009 (5) BCR 885]. 6 In the case at hand, Mr. Mantri submits that even though it is prayed in prayer clause (B) that order dated 25th February, 2010 be recalled / modified, he is seeking extension of time by six months. On account of this prayer, according to him, this application cannot be treated as 5 application for review. 7 We have given due consideration to the submissions made by Mr. Mantri, learned Counsel for applicants and Mr. Godbharle, learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondents No.1 to 3, who informed the Court that the present applicants did appear before the learned tribunal. Even, though applicants have requested for dispensing with the affidavit, we are considering the said prayer along with other prayers in the application. We have seen our earlier order dated 25th February, 2010. This order is passed by this Court consciously, taking into account merits of the matter, and after hearing the Counsel and considering the calender for entire events. By this application, even if it is to be considered for extension of time, in our view, there is absolutely no scope. Today, we are passing this order on 31st March, 2010. Still 14 days are available for the learned tribunal to decide the Original Application as ordered by this Court by 6 order dated dated 25th February, 2010. One more striking fact remained to be mentioned is that in the order dated 25th February, 2010, the date given to the parties to appear before the tribunal was 5th March, 2010. Clear directions have been given. We are not inclined to extend time as prayed for by the applicants. Application stands rejected. No costs. Authenticated copy of this order may be given to the parties, as per usual procedure. [ S.S. SHINDE ] [ S.B. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE JUDGE Kadam/*