( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.41 OF 2005 REVIEW PETITION NO.41 OF 2005 REVIEW PETITION NO.41 OF 2005 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.2397 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.2397 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.2397 OF 2004 Smt.Jiravati Rammurti Shukla .. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.V.Govilkar with Ms.Varsha Palav for Petitioner. Mr.R.C.Dhuru for Respondent Nos.2 and 4. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I.REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I.REBELLO, & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. DATE : 01.04.2005. DATE : 01.04.2005. DATE : 01.04.2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The only ground on which the review is sought is that, in terms of the sanction letter dated 30th October, 1998 the mortgage was to be created in so far as the term loan of Rs.1 lakh is concerned. It is pointed out that this document was not available earlier and now it has come to the knowledge, and on this ground, the review is sought. The petitioner contends that they are willing to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh. 2. On behalf of the Respondents, learned Counsel, from the same document refers to clause 9. Clause 9 provides that the mortgage of the residential house would be collateral security for all other term loans and cash credit limit. ( 2 ) 3. Considering that, we find no merit in this review petition. No interference is called for. Review Petition stands dismissed. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (S.P.KUKDAY, J.) (S.P.KUKDAY, J.) (S.P.KUKDAY, J.)