1 caw-2418-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2418 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5993 OF 2010 Dr. M. G. Nariani .. Applicant Vs. 1. Dilip Indrabhan Lunkad and ors. .. Respondents Ms. Soma Singh i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi and Co. for applicant. Mr. Hitesh Vyas for respondent no.1 (original petitioner). Mr. Sandeep Shinde for respondent no.2 (org. respondent no.1). Mr. Sunip Sen for respondent no.4 (org. respondent no.3). CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & A. A. SAYED, JJ. SEPTEMBER 21, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This application prays for recalling of our order dated 8/9/2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2010. 2 caw-2418-10 3. The said order was passed by us in terms of the minutes of order signed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 and while passing the said order the affidavit filed by Dr. Shantikumar D. Chivate, the Secretary of respondent no.1-Association was also on record. In paras 4 and 5 of the said affidavit, the Secretary stated as under:- “4. I agree that the said rule in the Respondent no.1 Association is also discriminatory and does not have any nexus to the functions and duties to be discharged by the Secretary/Treasure of the Association and the place of residence. I further state that due to global communications and technology of the modern day, it is very much possible to connect with members all over India easily and conveniently. Thus in the context of the modern day facilities and technology, the said restriction had no basis and thus it needs to be removed. 5. In view of the foregoing, I state that the grounds and contention raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition need consideration of this Hon’ble Court and I 3 caw-2418-10 agree with the same.” The consent terms were on the lines of the affidavit filed by the Secretary, who was represented through Mr. Sandeep Shinde. 4. We are, therefore, satisfied that the order dated 8/9/2010 was not passed on the basis of misrepresentation of the parties and we clarify that in the said order we have not given any directions to respondent no.3 in the petition. 5. Civil Application is rejected. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)