{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2007 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.4 OF 2006 Rambhau Vithoba Gavali & others APPLICANTS VERSUS Kavita Prabhakar Gavali RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.S.Chaudhari, Advocate for applicant Mr.A.T.Ghute h/f Mr.S.T.Ghute, Advocate for the respondent ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 29th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. The present review application arises out of the order passed in Appeal From Order No.4/2006. Order dated 27.02.2007, passed in AO No.4/2006 reads thus - “Heard learned counsel for the respondent. None appears for the appellant. Learned advocate for respondent submits that suit itself is adjudicated from which appeal arose. Hence, the appeal is rendered infructuous and stands dismissed as rendered infructuous with no order as to cost. Consequently, civil application also stands disposed of with no order as to {2} costs.” 2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks review of the said order. In this context, though the entire order is not necessarily be adverted to, yet it is necessary to consider the operative part of the order, which was impugned in the Appeal From Order No.4/2006. Clause 2 (a) of the said order, which is material, reads thus - 2. The judgment and decree of the trial court passed in RCS No.140/2001 dated 19.08.2002 by CJJD, Kallam is hereby set aside on following conditions. a) Appellants to deposit costs of Rs.12,000/- for delay caused to the suit for respondent in the trial court on or before 20.12.2005. Failing which there will be no remand of matter and respondent is entitled to execute the decree passed by the trial court in RCS No. 140/2001 on 19.08.2002, holding that there will be no remand of the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the applicants are seeking review of the Appeal From Order only to the extent of the condition to deposit Rs.12,000/-. However, the matter was remanded only on the condition of payment of the costs, otherwise the ex-parte decree, which was passed by the trial court was to be executed. It is not disputed that after depositing the said costs, the suit was heard and disposed of finally by the trial Court. Once this condition is complied with and the matter which was remanded is disposed of in accordance with law, then only the {3} condition to deposit Rs.12,000/- before the matter was remanded will not remain. If the order is to be challenged then it has to be challenged as a whole and not in part. In the premise, there is no substance in the submissions that the review is limited to the question of directions of payment of costs only. 4. In the result, there are no merits in the review application and hence stands dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ra107-07 {4} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8756 OF 2007 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2007 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.4 OF 2006 Rambhau Vithoba Gavali & others APPLICANTS VERSUS Kavita Prabhakar Gavali RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.S.Chaudhari, Advocate for applicant Mr.A.T.Ghute h/f Mr.S.T.Ghute, Advocate for the respondent ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 29th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. As the Review Application No.107/2007 itself is dismissed, the present civil application does not survive and hence disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ra107-07