Shri Ayurved Prachar Sanstha And ANR. v. Vd. Ramesh Chirkutaji Wavare And ANR.

1 926-RPWL-21594-17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.21594 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2187 OF 2016 Shri Ayurved Prachar Sanstha & Anr.

..Petitioners Vs.

Shri Ramesh Chirkutaji Wavare & Anr.

..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5080 OF 2016 Shri Vd. Ramesh Chirkutaji Wavare

...Petitioner

vs.

Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik & Ors.

...Respondents

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1041 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2187 OF 2016 Shri Vd. Ramesh Chirkutaji Wavare ..Applicant/Petitioner Vs.

Shri Ayurved Prachar Sanstha & Anr.

..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1537 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2187 OF 2016 Shri Ayurved Prachar Sanstha & Anr.

..Applicants/Petitioners Vs.

Shri Vd. Ramesh Chirkutaji Wavare & Anr.

..Respondents Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Senior advocate i/b Mr. A. A. Desai for the Applicant. Mr. S.K. Mali a/w Mr. R. R. Panchal & Mr. V. L. Chaudhari for the Respondent No.1.

Mr. Mihir Govilkar i/b Mr. R. V. Govilkar for the Respondent No.2.

2 926-RPWL-21594-17.doc CORAM: B. R. GAVAI AND RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE: 2nd AUGUST 2017 P.C. :

.

The Applicants have approached this Court seeking review of the order dated 19/6/2017 vide which we have dismissed the Petition. 2.

After assailing the order dated 19/6/2017 before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal, the Petitioners sought liberty to withdraw the said Appeal by saying that the Petitioners would like to approach the High Court by way of a Review Petition, as such the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners/Review Applicants states that this Court has committed a gross error, which is apparent on the face of the record. He submits that the observations made by this Court in paragraph No.8 are factually incorrect. 4.

Though we do not claim to possess a very good memory, we do recollect the proceedings. The order was passed by us in the open court in the presence of learned Advocate. We had made a pertinent query with regard to the factual statement made by us in paragraph 8 of the order to which learned counsel admitted it to be correct. It is seen that the litigants have a tendency of not telling the factual aspects with regard to the proceedings before the Court to the new lawyers and as such statements, which are incorrect are made by the lawyers before the Court. 5.

Review Petition is therefore dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1 Lakh. Cost be deposited by the Petitioners/Applicants in

3 926-RPWL-21594-17.doc favour of Maharashtra Legal Aid Services Authority within one week from today, failing to deposit the cost by demand draft, suo moto proceedings be initiated against the Petitioners for committing contempt of the order passed by the Court.

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)