1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7314 OF 2000 Shri Dinkar Antu Kambie, deceased, through Lrs, smt Anusaya Dinkar Kambire and ors ..Petitioners Vs Smt.Bhagirathibai Ramchandra Patil, Respondent Mr L.S.Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr P.B.Shah, Advocate for respondent nos 1B(A), 1B(B), 1A & 1C. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 18/07/2011 PC: 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order passed on a Review Application being RTS/Review/Appln./2/95. This review application is decided on 25.9.1996 and the Addl.Commissioner, Pune Division, refuses to review the order passed on 22.3.1995 in the main matter, viz -RTS/Revision Application No. 115/1984. 2. The petitioners are the heirs of Dinkar Antu Kambire. They state that the said Dinkar was the original applicant. He expired on 2.2.1994. The RTS revision application was decided on 22.3.1995. An intimation was sent in the name of the dead person. Thus, when the said Dinkar had expired, neither his heirs were given any notice nor were heard, then the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the T 2 said Dinkar expired after the hearing on the revision application concluded but before the pronouncement of the order. In terms of the procedural provision and even by applying the analogy of Order XXII rule 4(4) of the CPC, this course was permissible. 3. I am of the view that in this particular case, without entering into any larger controversy and since the said Dinkar died on 2.2.1994 and his subject revision application was decided in March, 1995 and, to be precise on 22.3.1995, interest of justice would be served if the order dated 22.3.1995 is set aside and the RTS revision application no.115 of 1984 is restored to file of the Addl. Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. 4. Parties to appear before the said Additional Commissioner, Pune, on 2.8.2011 at 10.30 am and the said Commissioner shall endeavour and dispose of this revision application within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. All contentions of both sides on maintainability as well as on merits are kept open. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms. In the light of disposal of the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 22.3.1995, it is not necessary to set aside the order dated 25.9.1996 as the review application itself does not survive. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 3 4