Bombay High CourtCAW/1115/2015dismissedrule discharged

Ravindra Uttamrao Pachgade v. Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), Amravati And 2 Others

2016-02-03Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq1 pages

caw.1115.15 1/1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION [CAW] NO.1115 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2141 OF 2014M (D) (Ravindra Uttamrao Pachgade vs. Divisional Commissioner [Revenue], Amravati and other) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

CORAM

: Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 3 rd FEBRUARY, 2016.

Heard Shri M.V. Joshi, Advocate, holding for Shri P.S. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri N.R. Rode, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. None appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3. This civil application, in terms, is an application seeking review of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 2141/2014 on 25/03/2015. The grievance made by the petitioner in this civil application is considered while deciding the petition. The petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of record, which necessitates the review of judgment.

The civil application is dismissed.

In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE *sandesh