1 RP 3/2010 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.3 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 38884 OF 2001 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5065 OF 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.S. Hardikar for the petitioners. Mrs. Anita Agarwal for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 6TH JUNE 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. 2. This review petition is directed against an order dated 17th April 2002 passed by this Court (Coram: J.G. Chitre, J.). Since Chitre J. 2 RP 3/2010 has retired, the matter is placed before this Bench. 3. By the order under review, this Court passed an order of setting aside the abatement and permitted the respondents to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased Kesharbai. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that on 17th April 2002 when the civil application was heard and decided, he was not present and therefore all the grounds which he wanted to urge before the Court were not pointed out. The order under review only refers to some of the grounds in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents. In my view, absence of the respondents’ counsel on the date of hearing by itself cannot be a ground for review. When a counsel is absent, the Court is entitled to proceed exparte and has so proceeded exparte 3 RP 3/2010 and considered the grounds in the reply as were thought relevant by it and has dealt with them. The grounds which were not considered as relevant or of substances were not dealt with in the order. As those grounds were not urged before the Court, no fault can be found for not dealing with them. There is no merit in the review petition. The review petition is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)