ORDER 1. The application for listing the Review Petition in open Court is rejected. 2. Delay condoned. 3. The instant Review Petition seeks review of the order dated 19.04.2024, whereby the appeal, filed by the appellant herein, was disposed of with certain directions. 4. We have carefully gone through the contents of the Review Petition and the papers appended therewith. 5. Our order of 19.04.2024 reads as under: “1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. In compliance of order dated 10.04.2024, the Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs, is present in Court. 4. The impugned judgment dated 04.04.2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, is modified to the extent below and the interim stay granted on 10.04.2024 is also clarified in the following terms: (i) The key of the main entrance gate of the entire compound shall remain with the Municipal Council. (ii) There shall be status quo with regard to the Masjid compound and the same shall be under the management and control of the Wakfs Board or the appellantCommittee with the consent of the Wakfs Board till further orders. (iii) The ingress and egress to other temples or monuments in the main compound shall be free from all types of hindrances and the people of other religions and/or public at large shall be allowed to visit the other ancient monuments/temples without any disturbance. (iv) The key of the rear side gate shall also remain with the Municipal Council, however, it shall be the duty and responsibility of the Municipal Council to depute an official to open that gate well before the time for Namaz starts in the morning and till all the Namaz are performed through the day. v) The keys shall be handed over to the Chief Executive Officer/Executive Officer of the Municipal Council during the course of the day. (vi) However, no encroachment of any type shall be made by any of the parties. 5. Learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the parties are agreed that the matter may be disposed of in the above terms. Ordered accordingly. 6. All other issues will be resolved by the Collector in the pending proceedings. 7. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the pending proceedings.” 6. 5. Learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the parties are agreed that the matter may be disposed of in the above terms. Ordered accordingly. 6. All other issues will be resolved by the Collector in the pending proceedings. 7. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the pending proceedings.” 6. The Review petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was no temple of any other religion in the protected monument in the records. 7. We clarify that our order dated 19.04.2024 is prima facie in nature and is based on the submissions of one party (R9 herein) about the existence of carvings on the stones in accordance with the temple such as Samaya, Moon, Surya, Lotus flower rows, Dhotra flower carvings, Vriksheveli carvings in the protection wall. Also, it is averred in the complaint by Respondent No.9 that people used to go to the building to perform pooja and religious rituals. This statement of Respondent No.9 is, however, disputed by the appellant. We have not finally pronounced on the existence or otherwise of temples or monuments and that will have to be decided in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, no case for review of the order dated 19.04.2024 is made out. 9. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. As a result, the pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.