Dropadaba Balbhim Garje And Another v. Gahininath Honaji Damale

2026:BHC-AUG:11592 42.RA.39.2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 39 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION 577 OF 2017 Dropadaba Balbhim Garje and Another ...Applicants

Versus

Gahininath Honaji Damale

...Respondent

***  Mr. N. B. Khandare, Senior counsel i/b Mr. Nimbalkar Aniruddha A., Advocate for the Petitioner.

 Mr. S. D. Kotkar, Advocate for the Petitioner in Writ Petition. *** CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

DATE : MARCH 13, 2026 P. C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

The present application is filed for seeking review of order dated 02nd February 2026.

3.

Mr. Khandare, learned senior counsel h/f Mr. Nimbalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to the order passed by this Court on 02nd February 2026, particularly paragraph No.22 and submitted that the entire exercise had already been carried out by the concerned authority. According to him, the said aspect was not noticed by this Court while passing the order. He further Shrikant Malani

42.RA.39.2026.doc submitted that the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner were not reflected in the order passed by this Court. 4.

In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.9 of the judgment passed in the case of Eastern Coalfields Vs. Joscon1 and submitted that once the arguments advanced by a party are not considered by the Court and not find place in the order, the same would constitute a ground for review of the order. 5.

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel, Mr. Khandare, I find that the learned senior counsel has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record committed by this Court while passing order. 6.

In view thereof, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present the review application. 7.

The review application is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.

( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) 2003 (12) SCC 339 Shrikant Malani