IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 8 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3045 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 2612 OF 2008 Pradeep Laxmidas Merchant alias “Parmar” Laxmidas Merchant ...Plaintiff Vs. Jitendra Laxmidas Merchant & Ors. ...Defendants --- Mr. Rajiv Narulla i/b. M/s.Jhangiani Narulla & Associates for Plaintiff Mr.Nilesh Modi with Ms.Harshal Manik i/b.Rustamji & Ginwala for Defendant Nos.2, 16 and 17. Mr. Haresh Jagtiani i/b. M/s. Shiralkar & Co. for Respondent Nos.6 to 9. Mr. D.H. Mehta with Ms. Naseem Patrawalla i/b. P.M. & Mithi & Co. for Respondent No.31. Mr. Vachan Bodke i/b. Chitnis Vaithy & Co. for Respondent Nos.33 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 28TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. This Review Petition is taken out by the Plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) That the Order dated 7th January, 2009 be reviewed and/or set aside; (b) that cost of the Petition be provided for; (c) for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.” 2. By order dated 22nd September, 2008, this Court was pleased to record that the parties were exploring possibility of settlement and also further recorded that in order to facilitate the talks of settlement between the parties, a direction was given for appointment of valuer to value the properties mentioned in the plaint. It was further directed that the fees of the Valuer shall be borne equally by all the parties. The said order was passed by consent of parties. Thereafter, again an application was filed by the Counsel for one of the Defendants for speaking to the minutes and for clarification of the said order and it was urged that since the dispute was in respect of one of the survey numbers, the fees of valuation of that survey number should be borne by the Plaintiff. Again when the said order was passed, all the Counsel for the respective parties were present. Thereafter, again an application was made for speaking to the minutes by the Counsel for the Plaintiff, in which it was alleged that the Counsel for the Plaintiff was not present when the clarification / modification of the earlier order was passed by this Court and, therefore, he was seeking a further clarification that all parties should be directed to bear the cost of the valuation. Since there was no agreement between the parties, liberty was given to the Plaintiff to file an appropriate application. The Plaintiff, has, therefore, filed his Review Petition seeking review of the order dated 22nd September, 2008. 3. In my view, since there is a disagreement between the parties regarding the payment of fees of the Valuer and since the earlier order was passed on an understanding that it is a consent order and since there is a disagreement between the parties regarding sharing of fees of the Valuer, in my view, it would be appropriate if the entire order dated 22nd September, 2008 itself is recalled. 4. The Review Petition is allowed. The entire order dated 22nd September, 2008 is recalled. All other orders clarifying or modifying this order are also recalled. Parties are at liberty to file a fresh application for appointment of the Valuer, if they so desire and upon such an application being made, the Court may pass an appropriate orders regarding payment of fees of valuation. 5. Review Petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid facts. V.M. KANADE J.