1 CA-94-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2011 in REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) No. 28994 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1194 OF 2009 Mrs. Kalpana Rajesh Deshpande & Anr. ... Applicants (Orig. Defendants) Vs. Mr. Gajanan Dharma Gharat & Ors. ... Respondents (Org. Plaintiffs) Mr. Avinash Chindane,Advocate, for the applicants CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 6th June , 2011. P.C. 1. Assuming that there is a good cause for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition, the delay is condoned and the Review Petition be registered. 2. On perusal of the order sought to be reviewed, it appears that it was an Appeal from Order filed by the present respondent and the learned Counsel for the respondent had pointed out that the suit was fixed for evidence and the matter would be disposed of as early as possible and accordingly without going into the merits of the case, this Court had disposed of the said Appeal by giving direction 2 CA-94-11.sxw to the trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit and to dispose of the same within specified period. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant/review petitioner, who was the respondent in the Appeal, wants to point out that she had already sold away some plots before this Court had granted ad-interim relief on 30.11.2009 restraining her from creating third party interest and that order needs to be modified. In my opinion, there is no need to modify that order. In case, any petition for contempt is filed against her, she can point out that she had in fact, sold away some of the plots prior to the order dated 30.11.2009. Therefore, I do not see any ground to review that order. 4. In the result,the Review Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)