1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Review Application No.99 of 2009 In W.P.No.2980/1990. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Learned advocate Mr. T.G. Gaikwad, holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the Review Petitioners seeks time as Mr.Salunke has gone out of station. The application is for review of the order in W.P. No. 2980/1990. It is contended that the advocate for the Respondent ought to have been accommodated when he would not present on the date of hearing. The advocate is absent today also and expectation of accommodation. Mr.Gaikwad, advocate holding for Mr. Salunke, advocate states that all other times, Mr.Salunke was present and the adjournment at instance of Mr.Mundhe. Be that may as it is, the absence of the advocate is not the only cause for disposal of the petition. The petition came to be disposed of in view of subsequent developments since the petitioner appear to have acquired ownership during the pendency of the petition. The inter vivos transfer is reason for disposal of the petition and no opinion is expressed on merits. The Review Petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in the Civil Court if the transfer is to be challenged. The word "of" used in third line of para 4 be substituted by the word "i.e." The Review Petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.18.07.2009. asp/office/Review99.09