1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C. A. S. NO. 778 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 156 OF 1999 Keshaorao Govindrao Palandurkar Vs. Govindrao Ramchandra Palandurkar thr. L.Rs. Vatsala wd/o Govindrao Palandurkar & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri V. D. Muley Adv for appellant. Shri Gupta Adv for respondents 2,3. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 16 th OCTOBER, 2009. Heard counsel for the appellant and the respondents. This application has been filed for withdrawal of the amount deposited in the Court towards rent. This Court while deciding the appeal has held that the present applicant/respondent is the owner of the two shops and he is entitled to rent in respect of those two shops. The said rent is deposited in the Court and he seeks to withdraw the said amount. Application is opposed by the counsel for the appellant on the ground that he has preferred a review application. He 2 submits that the review application is likely to be heard and therefore amount may not be paid. The civil suit, first appeal as well as second appeal have been decided. Review is not a right. I, therefore, do not see any reason why the amount should not be paid to the applicant. Hence this application for withdrawal of the amount is allowed but subject to the condition that applicant-respondent shall furnish an undertaking before the Registrar that in case the result of the review goes against him he shall redeposit the said amount in the Court within one month. JUDGE svk 3 4 5