1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION N. 13 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION N. 13 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION N. 13 OF 2008 IN REVIEW PETITION (st) NO. 3789 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 892 OF 2001 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1199 OF 2000 IN SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.4828 OF 1980 Zakir Hussain Abdul Rahim Attar & Anr. ..Applicants (Org. Applicants Versus Haji Mohammed Hannan S.Seledar, since deceasxed by his heirs and donees: 1(a) Smt. Nolorbi widow of Mohammed Abdul Hannan & Ors. ..Respondents (Org. Respondents) Mr. A.N.Maniyar, Advocate, for the applicants Ms. Saroj Shinde, Advocate, for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 29th February,2008. DATE: 29th February,2008. DATE: 29th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 2 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 98 days in filing Review Petition Stamp No.3789 of 2008 against the order passed in A.O.No.892 of 2007. A.O.892 of 2001 was disposed of on 27.9.2007 for want of prosecution on the basis of the statement made by one Noorbi ho was one of the appellants. The Review Petition is filed by the applicants seeking review of that order. It is contended by the applicants that they had purchased the property from the plaintiff in suit No.4828 of 1980. It is contended that the Chamber Summons was taken out to implead the present applicants as party to the suit. However, that Chamber Summons was rejected and therefore A.O.892 of 2007 was preferred by the plaintiffs. The record reveals that the present applicants were not shown as parties either as appellants or as respondents in the Appeal. 2. Mr. Maniar, Advocate appearing for the present applicants, had previously filed vakalatnama for the said appellants. The record reveals that on 27.9.2007, Mr. Maniar also made a statement before the Court that he was not appearing for the appellants. On 27.9.2007, when the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, one Noorbi, who was one of the appellants/plaintiffs, had made a statement before the Court that she had engaged Advocate, Mr. Savagave and she did not want to 3 prosecute the appeal. 3. The review-applicants contend that because they had already purchased the property from the plaintiffs and as the Chamber Summons to implead them in suit as rejected, the Appeal could not be disposed of without hearing them. I am unable to accept this contention, particularly because the names of the present applicants were not shown anywhere in the Appeal either as appellants or as respondents. In such circumstances, when the appellants wanted to withdraw the Appeal, there was no reason for the learned Judge not to allow that request. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the Review Petition. 4. Therefore, the Civil Application No.13 of 2008 for condonation of delay as well as the Review Petition Stamp No.3789 of 2008 stand dismissed. 5. The applicants shall be at liberty to take appropriate remedy to get themselves impleaded as parties in the suit. 4 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)