- 1 - rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE REVIEW PETITION NO.5 OF 2009 in A.O.NO.1337 OF 2008 in NOTICE OF MOTION NO.EXH NO.2 OF 2008 in SUIT NO.2418 OF 2008 Smt. Chhaya Prakash Sinkar ... Petitioner vs Smt Kalpana Vikas Sinkar ..Respondent .. Ms.Jyotsna Vyas i.b Mr.O.P.Pandya for Petitioner Mr.G.S.Bhat for Respondent. CORAM: R.V.MORE,J DATED: September 15, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. This Review petition is filed for review of the order dated 22nd April 2009. By the said order, the petitioner’s Appeal from Order came to be dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has disputed the execution of the gift deed dated 5th May 2004 in favour of the daughter of the respondent no.1. However, in para 3 of the order observations are made that there are no disputes regarding the execution of the gift deed. Learned - 2 - counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to page nos.76 and 77 of the compilation of the Appeal from order and pointed out that in the year 2002, the petitioner’ s name was there in the ration card. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent admitted that the petitioner has disputed the execution of the gift deed. However, he invited my attention to page no. 75 of the compilation which show that the petitioner’s name is removed from the ration card in the year 2004. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I do not see any merit in the Review Petition. Though initially name of the petitioner was there in the ration card in the year 2002, subsequently the same was removed in the year 2004 as evidenced by the document at page 75. Therefore, the fact remains that there are no documents to show that the petitioner is in possession of the suit premises. The gift deed is subject matter of the suit and the validity of the same will have to be decided in trial. In the above facts, Review Petition is dismissed. R.V.More, J - 3 -