IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Review Petition No. 43 of 2008 in Writ Petition No. 4219 of 2007 1.Smt.Sangeeta lKadam ..Petitioner vs. 1. Tagore Nagar Shanti Sadan Coop.Housing Society Ltd. and others ...Respondents Shri C.S.Joshi for petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 28th April, 2008 28th April, 2008 28th April, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This review petition seeks review of order dated 5th December, 2007 which has been passed in Writ Petition No.4219 of 2007 and the connected matters. By common order each of the petitions preferred by the petitioners has been rejected. 2. Shri Joshi points out that Writ Petition Nos.4222 of 20007 and Writ Petition No.4225 of 2007 were on board for admission but in the order passed on 5th December, 2007 the details/title of the Writ Petition No.4222 of 2007 and 4225 of 2007 are not shown. From the perusal of the cause title of the petitions, it appears that the petitioner appeared in person. She stated that she had authority to appear for all the petitioners. In such circumstances, the title be corrected and details of other petitions be also included. Shri Joshi states that he has instructions from the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4222 of 2007 and Writ Petition No.4225 of 2007 to make the above statement. The petitioner Smt.Sangita Kadam is present in Court and Shri Joshi, after taking instructions, makes a statement that she is authorised to represent these petitioners as well. Hence the order be corrected accordingly. 3. As far as merits are concerned, it is clear that that review jurisdiction is not an appeal. This Court cannot once again go into the issues which are concluded by orders. The remedy of aggrieved parties is to prefer an appeal against these orders. 4. There are some contentions, which Shri Joshi would urge have not been canvassed before me by the petitioner who appeared in person. Shri Joshi has taken me through the order passed by this Court way back in 1991 and report of the Architect. The contentions based upon these documents have been considered and dealt with in the order. It may be that the petitioner is not satisfied with the order. However, that is no ground for review, more so, when no error apparent on the face of record or any ground falling within the purview of section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure is made out. Review petition is, therefore, dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)