1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.113 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1549 OF 2009 IN APPEAL (L) NO.190 OF 2009 IN COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.30 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.948 OF 1985 Shah Associates .... Petitioner V/s. Tabore Trading Company and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.112 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1550 OF 2009 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1642 OF 2009 IN APPEAL (L) NO.191 OF 2009 IN COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.30 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.948 OF 1985 Shah Associates .... Petitioner V/s. Salima A. Sooman and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Madhav Jamdar, for the petitioners. Mr.P.K.Dhakhephalkar, Sr.Advocate, a/w Mr.Yadunath Choudhari i/by Smt.Reena Salunke, for the respondents. Mr.S.K.Sonawane-Patil, for the Respondent – BMC. 2 CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, & R.V.MORE, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2009 P.C. 1. These review petitions are filed against the orders dated 23-11-2009 in Notices of Motion Nos.1549 of 2009 and 1550 of 2009. By the aforesaid orders, this Court condoned the delay of about 10 days in filing the respective appeals. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appellants have no locus standi to file the proceedings and therefore, delay ought not to have been condoned. He further submitted that from the surrounding circumstances it can be inferred that the appellants were aware about the impugned order and the ground mentioned for condonation of delay was not correct. He submitted that the appellants have no locus standi and they have no right in the property in any manner and therefore, the appeals are not required to be entertained at their instance. 2. In our view, by the order under review, we have only condoned the delay in filing the respective appeals with a view to see that whatever may be the grievance of the appellants can be examined on merits. By condoning the delay we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. We make it clear that it is always open to the 3 respondents to contest the appeal on all available points in accordance with law, including the ground that the appellants have no locus standi to file the appeals and that the appellants have no case on merits. Even otherwise, in order to examine the main matter on merits, unless the delay is condoned we cannot examine the main matter on its own merits. Suffice it to say that this is not a case wherein the impugned orders passed by us are required to be reviewed in any manner, as this Court has not decided rights of the parties by condoning the delay. It is clarified that all the contentions of both the sides are kept open and it is open for them to argue the matter on merits. 3. Subject to what is stated above, the review petitions are dismissed. ( R.V.MORE, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)