IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 5 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 102 OF 2008 MR. UMAKANT BHALCHANDRA KENKRE AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus DR. SRICRISHNA BALCHANDRA KENKRE THROUGH ATTORNEY ANASUYA SRICRISHNA KENKRE AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 4th March, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. Shivan Dessai, learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants who are the Defendants in Special Civil Suit No.56/05/B and Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents. The Respondents had made an application dated 17-12-2007 before the trial Court for early hearing and in the alternative to appoint a Commissioner to record the evidence of Plaintiff No. 2 who was stated to have come all the way from U.S.A. to Goa to depose. The trial Court rejected the said application observing that that was not possible as the Court was busy with other direction matters. The question of recording the evidence by appointing a Commissioner was not considered by the trial Court. The Plaintiffs in the said Civil Suit preferred a Writ Petition against the said order and the said Writ Petition came to be disposed of, without issuing notice to the Applicants/Defendants by order dated 22-2-2008 with a direction to the trial Court to consider recording of evidence of the Plaintiffs by a Commissioner, after hearing the other side and to that extent the impugned Order dated 22-1-2008 was set aside. The Applicants seek review of Order dated 22-2-2008. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants submits that the Applicants were entitled to a notice since the order dated 22-1-2008 was being set aside and in support of the same learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants has placed reliance on State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sham Lal and others(AIR 1996 SC 2208). Learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants further submits that they would be entitled to support the order submitting that the prayer for appointment of a Commissioner was in terms rejected by the trial Court. I have perused the decision cited. That was a case where a Letters Patent Appeal was allowed at the preliminary stage without issuing any notice. That is not the case herein. Partial setting aside of the order dated 22-2-2008 was only incidental. A prayer made which was not considered, by the trial Court has been directed to be considered by hearing both the sides and as such there is no question of prejudice being caused to any side. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the order passed by this Court by which both the parties would be heard before a Commissioner is appointed, in my view, there is no case for review of the order dated 22-2-2008. Hence, the Review Petition is rejected. Authenticated copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.