1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. REVIEW APPLICATION NO.83 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.186 OF 1986. Chandrashekhar S/o Sidramappa Chinchansure and another ... petitioners. Versus Bhaurao Sidramappa Chindhansure since deceased through his L.Rs. Smt.Suglabai W/o Bhaurao Chinchansure and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.G.Godhamgaonkar, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1A to lC. ... WITH REVIEW APPLICATION NO.84 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.186 OF 1986. Gulabrao S/o Sidramappa Chinchansure, since deceased through his L.Rs. Girish S/o Gulabrao Chinchansure and another ... Petitioners. 2 Versus Bhaurao Sidramappa Chindhansure since deceased through his L.Rs. Smt.Suglabai W/o Bhaurao Chinchansure and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.P.Raje, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.G.Godhamgaonkar, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1A to lC. Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 13.08.2009. PER COURT 1. These are Review Petitions seeking review of judgment rendered by this Court in Second Appeal No.186/1986. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Mr.C.R.Deshpande, would submit that the learned advocate for the original Respondents died during pendency of the Second Appeal and his son, who was looking after the litigation was also no more and, therefore, there was no representation of the Respondent. He contended 3 that the Respondents, who have filed the Review Application, could not appear and represent themselves due to lack of information and, therefore, the judgment under Review is required to be reconsidered. He also submitted that the substantial question of law formulated by this Court at the time of hearing was not the same which was formulated at the time of admission of the Second Appeal and as such the Review Petitioners could be given opportunity of hearing. He referred to certain observations in "Thiagarajan and others Vs. Sri Venugopalaswamy B.Koil and others" AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1913. In the given case, the Apex Court noticed that the substantial question of law which was framed earlier was not dealt with by the High Court and another substantial question of law framed at the time of final hearing was alone considered. It was also noticed that the Respondent was not given proper opportunity. Reference is also made to "Mahakali Engineering Corpn. and another Vs. R.C.Subramanyam and others" (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 264. The fact situation in the present case stands on different footings. The 4 Second Appeal was admitted on substantial question of law which was not, in my opinion, crystallised with specifications. It was only observed that the substantial question of law pertaining to partition and repartition was involved in the Second Appeal. It was redrafted by me with clarification but the core of the substantial question of law did not change. Obviously, neither party was taken by surprise. Secondly, it was duty of the original Respondents/Review Petitioners to inquire about stage of the Second Appeal after the death of their advocate. They did not make any alternate arrangement. It does not stand to reason that they were unaware about death of their advocate Shri A.B.Bajpai. Another contention of the learned counsel for the Review Petitioners is that one of the defendant No.3 by name Gulabrao died on 6.4.2000 and his legal representatives were not taken on record. It is contended that the whole appeal stood abated because the decree was indivisible. I do not agree. The suit was for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The first appellate Court has dismissed the suit by 5 reversing the decree of the trial Court. Therefore, there was no decree at all when the Second Appeal was being heard. The legal heirs of deceased Gulabrao did not come forward to ventilate such grievances. Considering the relevant aspects, I do not find any substance in the Review Petitions. The Review Petitions are accordingly dismissed. C.As. be deemed as disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Review8309