1 rp 31-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Review Petition No. 31 of 2010 in Summons for Judgment No. 510 of 2009 in Summary Suit No. 2637 of 2009 India Infoline Ltd. .. Petitioner v/s. Aarti Gunjekar & Another ..Respondent Mr.P.N.Mody, Ms. Neville Wadia & Ms. Jyoti Ghag i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Petitioner . Respondent No.1 in person CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 28th March, 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.1 in person. According to the petitioner, while addressing the court at the stage of hearing of Summons of Judgment No.510 of 2009 a statement was made by the defendants that all the matters are settled, including criminal cases. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that the said statement was patently false statement. Reinvestigation Application dated 5.2.2010 was filed in 2 rp 31-10.sxw the Bandra Court in Criminal Case No.47 of 2009 by the respondent. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner a false statement made by the respondent no.1 made this court to accept the case of the respondent no.1 and according to petitioner it had some bearing on the final order which was passed. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his statement that the matter needs review, relied upon the judgment in the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry & Ors. vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. Reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 221. I have perused the said judgment. It is required to be mentioned that while passing the order in the Summons for Judgment, being Order dated 28.6.2010 though the statement made by the respondent no.1 as well as the respondent nos.2 who were defendants in the Summary Suit was noted that all matters are settled and the sum of Rs.18 lakhs is received towards settlement. I have observed that amount received of Rs.5 lakhs by the defendant no.1 would provide independent cause of action. This aspect that a separate cause of action accrued to the plaintiff was a point on the basis of which unconditional leave to defend was granted. In my view, the order dated 28.6.2010 need not be reviewed 3 rp 31-10.sxw from the angle in which it was placed before the Court. 3. Review petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]