1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO.160 OF 2010 WITH M.C.A.ST.NO.18911/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2691 OF 2009(D). SAU.SUMANTAI ARUN DEKATE, R/O. BABUPETH, CHANDRAPUR, DISTT.CHANDRAPUR. .. VERSUS .. TULSHIRAM MAHADEO DHAWAS, R/O. BABUPETH, CHANDRAPUR, DISTT.CHANDRAPUR. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.W.Paunikar, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2010. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 39 days in seeking review by application bearing Stamp No. 18911 of 2009 of an order passed disposing of Writ Petition No.2691 of 2009. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. First, the ground for condonation of delay, namely that the applicant is poor and illiterate lady is falsified by the description of the applicant as in service somewhere and President of Adivasi Mahila Mandal Shikshan Sanstha. It 2 is hard to imagine that a person in service would be illiterate, particularly when the petitioner is President of an Educational Institution. 4. In any case, the application for review itself does not disclose any ground indicating that the order, whereby the writ petition was allowed, needs to be reviewed. The order simply allowed the application for amendment of plaint whereby figures of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- were allowed to be interchanged, because obviously it was a typographical error and the plaintiff was allowed to add party since specific plea of non-joinder had been taken in the written statement and an issue had been framed. The plaintiff had specifically stated that he does not want to tender any additional evidence. 5. In view of this, no ground for review of the order has been made out, therefore, both the applications are, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR..