918.mca.950.24 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application [MCA] No.950 of 2024 in First Appeal No.1072 of 2013 (D) Pramod s/o Sukhlalji Borundia and others vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal and others =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr. A.B. Nakshane, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs. H.S. Dhande, A.G.P. for Non-Applicant Nos.1 & 2. Mr. M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.3. CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 29 th AUGUST, 2 026. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 02. By the present application, the applicants/claimants are seeking review of the judgment and order dated 16/10/2019 passed by this Court (Coram: Shri M.G. Giratkar, J., as then he was) in First Appeal No.1072/2013, on the grounds that, due to their poor financial condition, the review applicants were not able to engage an Advocate within the stipulated time. Further, the appeal preferred by them as well as the appeal preferred by the acquiring body were not tagged together and, therefore, an ex parte order was passed in First Appeal No.1072/2013 preferred by non-applicant No.3-acquiring body and the said order was passed behind their back. Hence, they prayed for review. 03. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant No.3-acquiring body strongly opposed the application on the ground that non-applicant No.3 had filed First Appeal No.1072/2013 and, after service of notice, the present applicants/claimants appeared through their Counsel, Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, and also filed First Appeal No.867/2011 seeking enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the grounds set out in 2026:BHC-NAG:11480 918.mca.950.24 2/3 the application regarding non-engagement of the Counsel due to their poverty are falsified. 04. The learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant No.3- acquiring body further canvassed that the applicants/claimants raised a further ground that, on 16/10/2019, their Counsel did not appear in First Appeal No.1072/2013 and, therefore, the said judgment was passed in the absence of the Counsel for the applicants. However, the said ground is not bona fide and substantiated for review of the judgment and order passed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the review application. 05. Needless to say, the applicants/claimants have filed the present review application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 16/10/2019 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.1072/2013 mainly on the grounds that when the matter was called out, the learned Counsel for the applicants/claimants was not present and due to their poor financial condition, they could not engage the Counsel, and further that First Appeal No.1072/2013 was not tagged along with First Appeal No.867/2011. 06. It is a well-settled principle of law that the absence of counsel when the matter was called out and the judgment was passed cannot, by itself, be a substantial ground for review of the judgment and order. Therefore, this ground set out by the applicants is not tenable in the eyes of law and, hence, the application is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. 07. Needless to say, the applicants further contended that, due to their poor financial condition, they could not engage the Counsel within the stipulated time. However, the applicants themselves pleaded in paragraph No.3 of this application that earlier their Counsel represented them and had sent notice to them, but due to his busy schedule, he 918.mca.950.24 3/3 (Advocate) was not able to contest the matter on behalf of the applicants and, therefore, the applicants took back the brief to engage another Counsel. 08. The learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant- acquiring body submits that initially Advocate Mr. S.A. Ashirgade was engaged by the applicants in the year 2011 and subsequently, Advocate Mr. Anand Parchure was engaged in the year 2016. This fact has not been denied by the applicants. Therefore, the said ground also falsifies the grounds set out in the application. 09. Nonetheless, when the applicants had earlier engaged the Counsel, it does not lie in the mouth of the applicants to contend that, due to their poor financial condition, they were not able to engage the Counsel. Therefore, this application is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, I do not find any ground made out in the application for review of the impugned judgment and order dated 16/10/2019. 10. Hence, the application for review stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *sandesh Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 01/09/2026 18:47:35