1 rpw3 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.3 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1048 OF 2000 Shantgonda Anna Patil & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. Bharat Sahakari Bhadekaru Malki Grihanirman Sanstha ...Respondent Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the Petitioners Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the respondent no.1 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 19, 2011 P.C.: 1 Taken up for final hearing. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. While the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners was disposed of by Judgment and order dated 5 th March 2010, a statement of the respondent was recorded by this Court in paragraph no.5 of the Judgment that the first respondent has not withdrawn an amount of Rs. 82,361/- deposited by the review petitioners. By this review petition, it is pointed out that in fact the first respondent had withdrawn the said amount. The review petitioners have pointed out that by a detailed order passed by the Executing Court on 30 th September 1988, the first respondent was permitted to withdraw the said amount subject to risk as indicated in the said order and the said order has been confirmed by this Court in the Revision 2 rpw3 Application. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that it is true that the amount was withdrawn by the first respondent. However, the withdrawal will be of no consequences. 2 The withdrawal of the amount was permitted by the Executing Court by a detailed order dated 30 th September 1988. Prayer for withdrawal was opposed by the petitioners. From text of the order, it appears that withdrawal was permitted at the risk of the first respondent. Whether the withdrawal has any relevance for exercise of powers under section 28 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 or not is a question which will have to be decided. The fact remains that when this Court decided the writ petition, this Court proceeded on the basis of a statement that a sum of Rs.82,361/- was not withdrawn by the first respondent. The effect of withdrawal of the said amount will have to be considered in the light of the order dated 30 th September 1988. Therefore, the order passed in the writ petition will have to be recalled. 3 Hence, review petition is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Judgment and Order dated 5 th March 2010 is recalled and the writ petition no.1048 of 2000 is restored which shall be placed for final hearing before the appropriate Court. JUDGE