10-CA-10865-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 10 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10865 OF 2026 IN RAST/20708/2026 Santosh Baliram Koli VERSUS Pandit Laxman Patil And Ors WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 20708 OF 2026 IN WP/5955/2018 Santosh Baliram Koli VERSUS Pandit Laxman Patil And Ors ... Mr. V. B. Patil for the Applicant. Mr. D. A. Mane for the Respondents. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 24 SEPTEMBER 2026 P. C.: 1. This is an application filed for condonation of 97 days delay in filing Review Application. Considering the averments made in the Application, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 2. The captioned Review Application is not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board.p 3. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking review of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5955 of 2018 dated 10th march 2026. Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:45861 10-CA-10865-2026.doc 4. The present Application is filed on behalf of original Respondent No.3, who contends that this Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Advocate Mr. P. L. Patil. Mr. V. B. Patil, learned counsel for the Applicant tried to convince that this Court ought not to have allowed the Writ Petition by observing that the Advocate cannot be called as a witness and therefore he submits that the order passed by this Court needs to be recalled. When a specific query is made to Mr. V. B. Patil that what is apparent error committed by this Court while passing the order, he tried to argue the matter on merit and tried to re-open the matter which was already disposed of. Therefore, considering the above, this Court finds that the Applicant is unable to point out apparent error committed by this Court. Hence, no case is made out to recall the said order. Hence, the Review Application is dismissed. No order as to costs. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham