IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8237 OF 2008 Sushila Namdeo Patil ..... ..... ...Petitioner V/s Balabai Popat Bhatmare & Ors. ..... ..... .Respondents. Mr.Rahul Kulkarni, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.P.D.Dalvi, Adv. For Respondent No.6. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 11th November, 2009. PC: Heard. An order dated 11.11.08 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ichalkaranji, is challenged by filing the present writ petition which goes to reject the application moved by the petitioner for review of earlier order dated 18.10.06 which in turn rejected the application purported to have been moved by the petitioner judgment­debtor under order 21 rule 89 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale. 2. A money decree came to be passed in favour of the respondent­ decree holders against the present petitioner. Darkhast proceedings came to be initiated for executing the decree. In the said proceedings property of the petitioner came to be attached and sold. The petitioner had deposited only 5% of the purchase money and did not deposit the amount specified in the proclamation of sale for recovery of which the sale was ordered. For moving an application under order 21 rule 89 the sine qua non is the deposit of the amount specified in sub­rule 1(a) and (b) of rule 89. Admittedly the amount covered by Rule 89(1)(b) was not deposited by the judgment­debtor and hence very application itself was not tenable. The Court thus rightly rejected the application 1 by an order dated 18.1006. Belatedly after expiry of about two years an application came to be moved seeking review of the said order. Truly speaking, review application is misconceived as the case of the petitioner does not fall within the para meter of order 47 rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. The application has been rightly rejected. Perused the impugned order. Same does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence Writ petition is summarily dismissed. 3. At this stage learned counsel seeks stay of this order for a period of eight weeks. In my view this is not a fit case for grant of stay of order. Prayer is thus rejected. 11.11.2009. 2