*1* wp.1461.11.40.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1461 OF 2011 Sheikh Amin Akhtar and another. ..Petitioners -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Ms.N.S.Nappinai with Ms.Pradnya Kadam, for the Petitioners. Mr.Rajendra G. Megh, for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.Vinod L. Desai, for the Respondent No.5. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP, for the Respondent No.1. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 13th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and perusing with her assistance the order dated 22.12.2010, I am of the view that there is no necessity to interfere therewith. 2 Misc. Application No.151/2010 was preferred by Sheikh Amin Akhtar who is the Petitioner No.1 before me. The Petitioner No.1/ original Applicant, sought review/recall of the orders dated 11.06.2010, 28.10.2010, 30.11.2010 and 06.12.2010. The Court below, while dealing with this application, has very clearly held that the Petitioner No.1/ original Applicant claims to be owner of Flat No.702, but the sale deed filed by him shows that he is owner of Flat No.701. The dispute is about Flat No.702. The Society states that there was division of these two flats. However, the Court below in paragraph No.11 of the order has held that there were several questions which have been raised on account of *2* wp.1461.11.40.sxw allegations made by the parties. These allegations and questions arising there from cannot be decided in the application which was preferred by the Petitioner No.1. For him the remedy lies elsewhere and the Court below opined that he must take recourse to such proceedings as are permissible in law before the appropriate forum. The Court cannot assist him in review jurisdiction. 3 In such circumstances, there is no need to interfere with such an order because if the Petitioner No.1 is trying to establish his rights over the flat and raises several issues including that of fraud, his remedy is to approach the competent Court for declaring his rights, title and interest. With the clarification that is given by the Co-operative Appellate Court in the impugned order and in addition, when I am of the view that none of the observations and findings conclude the issue of Petitioner No.1/ original Applicant’s alleged rights in the property, then, all the more there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Once the order itself clarifies that the Court cannot deal with the issue of title, then, the Petitioners are no way prejudiced. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)