hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 51 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4641 of 2006 Satyawan Singh ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S. Malik for Petitioner. Mr. R.A. Rodrigues for Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : MARCH 08, 2010 P.C. By the review application, the learned counsel seeks review of the order on the ground that he made submission to this court seeking to withdraw the Petition with a liberty to move the revisional Forum to which he was entitled to. On that basis this court allowed the Petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty as prayed for. The learned counsel points out that when the Review Application was filed, he was not aware that in fact a revision had been filed and that had been disposed of. The Petitioner had filed Petition before the Delhi High Court and in that also he did not disclose in the petition that a revision had been filed. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we recall the impugned order dated 9.8.2009 as it based on a wrong statement made by the counsel. Petition restored to file. The learned counsel seeks six weeks time to carry out amendment in the review petition. Time granted on a condition that if the amendment is not carried out, the petition will stand dismissed for non prosecution. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)