: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.8 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.242 OF 2008 Smt.Jaswant Kaur Arora & Anr. ....Petitioners V/s. Smt.Harvant Kaur Man Singh Anand ....Respondent Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel with Mr.P.S. Dani i/b R. Bhargavan & Associates for the Review Petitioners. Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.J.G. Aradwad (Reddy) for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 28TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. : 1. The application for review is sought to be supported on the basis of an order dated 19.4.2002 passed by the learned single Judge of the Small Causes Court which I will deal with in detail shortly. It was contended and I will presume rightly, that this order was through inadvertence not brought to my notice. 2. It is pertinent to note that the suit was filed in the year 1993. On 18.8.1998 an order of no written statement was passed. By an order dated : 2 : 2.2.1999 the suit was directed to be proceeded with ex-parte. An application to set-aside this order was made in the year 1999 itself. This application was allowed by the said order dated 19.4.2002. Mr.Jahagirdar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioners, relied upon the following part of the order in support of the Review Petition :- "5. ................................ The Plaintiff requested for directions to the Defendant to deposit the arrears of rent as stated in affidavit in reply. I find that after filing of written statement there will be stage of scrutiny order. I find that it is proper that Plaintiff should make request at that time. The request of Plaintiff cannot be decided in the present notice. In the result it is just and proper to set aside the order and permit Defendant to file written statement on payment of costs of Rs.1000/- to the Plaintiff. I record my findings on Point No.1 in the affirmative. Thus the following order :- O r d e r . Notice is made absolute. . The order to proceed without written statement and exparte against Defendants as prayed in prayer clauses is set aside. The Defendants are allowed to file written statement on or before 2.5.2002 at 3-00 P.M. on payment of costs of Rs.1000/- to the Plaintiff. Liberty to the Defendants to make payment by case directly to the Plaintiff or depots in court. Liberty to the Plaintiff to withdraw the cost if deposited in court. Liberty to Plaintiff to reagitate claim regarding direction to the Defendants to deposit : 3 : arrears of rent at appropriate state." (emphasis supplied) 3. Before I construe the order, it is pertinent to note the following facts. On 16.6.2003, the trial Court expedited the hearing of the suit. Issues were framed on 11.8.2003 which in law is construed to be the first date of hearing. Admittedly the application for deposit was made only on 27.8.2003 i.e. after the first date of hearing. 4. On these facts and considering the law as it stands, it is clear that the Petitioners had not sought to deposit the amount within time namely the first date of hearing. It was however contended that in view of the observations in the order dated 19.4.2002 that the Petitioners should make the request for direction to deposit the arrears of rent "at that time" namely the stage of scrutiny order, the Petitioners cannot be faulted for not having made the application within the time prescribed by law. Thus the defence hinges only on the alleged mistake of the trial Court. 5. I am not inclined to accept this submission. It is not as if the order dated 19.4.2002 permitted the deposit to be made at a time after that prescribed : 4 : by law. It is true that the scrutiny order had in fact not been passed by 11.8.2003. However, it is pertinent to note that liberty had been granted to the Plaintiff to reagitate the claim regarding direction to the Defendants/Petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent at the appropriate stage. It is thus clear that the question as to by what time the application for depositing the arrears could be made was kept open and was not conclusively decided by the said order. No case therefore can be based on any mistake of the trial Court on this ground of law. 6. The Petitioners cannot be permitted to make the application contrary to law on the basis of the observation of the trial Court which in any event cannot be read in isolation. The order must be read as a whole. The observation must be read along with the last sentence reserving the aforesaid liberty to the Plaintiff/Respondent. 7. In the circumstances, the Review Petition is dismissed. The time to vacate stipulated in the order of which review is sought is extended upto 15.10.2008. This however, is subject to a fresh undertaking being furnished within two weeks from today on the same terms.