1 901-CA 9995-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9995 OF 2026 IN REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 20421 OF 2026 Pettanna s/o Bashanna Yadav (Died) Since Deceased Santosh s/o Balanna Yadav And Others .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 20421 OF 2026 Pettanna s/o Bashanna Yadav (Died) Since Deceased Santosh s/o Balanna Yadav And Others .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis, Advocate for Applicants. Smt. S. S. Joshi, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ. DATE : 01st SEPTEMBER, 2026. PER COURT :- CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9995 OF 2026 : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sabnis for the applicants and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2026:BHC-AUG:40109-DB 2 901-CA 9995-2026.odt 2. This civil application is filed seeking condonation of delay caused in filing review application. The delay is of 44 days. No notice is required to the Corporation since the delay is hardly of 44 days. 3. For the reasons stated in the application, delay stands condoned. The civil application is allowed. Office to register the review application. 4. With this, the civil application stands disposed of. REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 20421 OF 2026 : 1. An order dated 21.04.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12859/2016 with other connected civil applications is sought to be reviewed by way of this application. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Sabnis for the applicants vehemently argued that this Court while passing the order has considered only one prayer out of three substantive prayers i.e. prayer clauses C, D and E. This Court while passing the order has only considered the statement of Municipal Corporation that, in case, Corporation is willing to widen the road from 65 ft. to 80 ft. it is in that case the Corporation shall follow the procedure of law and acquire the 3 901-CA 9995-2026.odt land. This Court has observed that the petition was premature. Therefore, learned advocate submits that, in fact, land of the applicants is taken in possession by the Corporation long back in the year 1991. It is in that view a prayer was made that acquisition proceeding be initiated for taking possession of the land which is to the extent of 75 % of the lands of the petitioners. Width of 65 ft. to 80 ft. if at all is made that will affect remaining 25% of the area of the land of the petitioners. 3. At the outset, this Court made a query in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr., (1997) 9 SCC 736 that the petition was argued by another advocate whereas, the application is filed by the present advocate. He could not answer except showing that the clients do not desire to go to earlier advocate. This Court has consistently taken a view that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. (supra) has deprecated the practice of filing review through advocate who was not an advocate when the original proceeding was argued. In the present case, the petition was argued by another advocate and the review application is filed by the present 4 901-CA 9995-2026.odt advocate. This view is consistently followed by this Court in the following judgments : (i) Bhupendra R. Gupta & Anr. Vs. Sakhubai S. Ghatal & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 9298. (ii) Shree Vaishnav Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Review Petition No. 31/2024 in W.P. No. 16145/2023 (Principal Seat at Bombay). (iii) Machindra Bhanudas Kulange & Ors. Vs. Suresh Kisanrao Gaikwad & Anr., Review Application No. 139/2022 in W.P. No. 2989/2016 (Aurangabad Bench). (iv) Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar, (2020) 13 SCC 188. (v) Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., MANU/UP/0389/2026. 4. Now, it is well settled that, when a review is filed it is to be filed by the same advocate who had argued the main petition. Considering all above, it is clear that the review needs to be filed by the same advocate who argued the case or who was advocate in the original proceeding. However, without going into that aspect this Court finds that, this Court has considered the submissions which were advanced before this Court at the relevant time. There is nothing to show that as to what steps applicants have taken after 1991 when allegedly the possession of their property about 75% was taken by the Corporation. Even on 5 901-CA 9995-2026.odt that ground this Court finds that, though the prayer is not apparently considered it is the fact that the petitioners could not satisfy the Court on that aspect. 5. Considering above, this Court finds that no parameters of section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure are made. There is no merit in the review application. Therefore, the review application stands dismissed. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B.