1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1729 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for the applicant Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. K.B. Choudhari, AGP for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 2nd March, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the original respondent No.3 Bank, is seeking review of the order dated 19/1/2010, under which order, the respondent No.3 came to be deleted from the array of respondents. 2. Inviting our attention to the order dated 19/1/2010, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the review applicant, that the Board comprised of District Deputy Registrar, a representative of the respondent No.3 bank and a 2 representative of the agriculturists. The petition was filed acting on a resolution passed by the Board. In that view of the matter, Shri Dhorde, learned counsel for the respondent NO.3, had objected to the impleadment of the respondent No.3 ( i.e. the bank) as a party respondent and hence, under the above referred order, the name of respondent No.3 came to be deleted. 3. It is now submitted that, by a communication dated 15/1/2010, the 3rd respondent has informed the Commissioner of Sugar that the Officer of the Bank, who was on the 3 member Board having retired, the Bank does not want to continue its representation on the Board hereinafter. In that view of the matter, a prayer is made to re-implead the bank, as respondent No.3 in the petition. It is further prayed that the last sentence of para.No.1 of the order dated 19/1/2010 be deleted which reads thus :- “ In that view of the matter, learned counsel Shri Hon, appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is permitted to be deleted at the risk of the petitioner.” 4. Advocate Shri Hon, appearing for the petitioner has no objection for review of the order dated 19/1/2010, as asked for. 3 5. Hence, the review petition is allowed to the extent it seeks re-impleadment of the original respondent No.3 as respondent No.3 to the petition, and deletion of last sentence of para.1 extracted hereinabove. 6. Civil application is disposed of. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J] [A.P. DESHPANDE,J.] grt/-