1 CA NO.16639/2010 IN RAST 35098/2010 WITH CA NO.16640/2010 IN RAST 35098/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 62. CA/16639/2010 MADHUKAR [Civil] V/S MRS LAXMIBAI BUDHO PATIL DIED AND ANR In RAST/35098/2010 WITH CA/16640/2010 MADHUKAR BHUDO PATIL V/S MRS LAXMIBAI BUDHO PATIL DIED AND ANR In RAST/35098/2010 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.V.B.Patil, Adv.,for applicant. Mr. S.C.Bora, Adv., for Rs.2 and 3 in Second Appeal. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 8-2-2011 ... 1. Heard. There is delay of 185 days in filing the review application. Considering the bona fide mistake and impression generated by the applicant/original defendant and, the age factor, the delay is condoned as same is sufficiently explained. Application allowed in above terms. 2 CA NO.16639/2010 IN RAST 35098/2010 WITH CA NO.16640/2010 IN RAST 35098/2010 2. By review petition the judgment, declining relief in Second Appeal No.1631/2005, dt.22nd April, 2010, is sought to be reviewed. 3. Counsel submits, this is more so in the light of the law declared by this Court (learned Single Judge) in the matter of Ananda Krishna Tate V. Draupadibai Krishna Tate ( AIR 2010 Bombay 83). 4. The reference given by the learned Counsel - to the judgment in the matter of Ananda Krishna Tate will seldom be applicable to the facts of the present case. The legal position that has emerged owing to Hindu Women's Right to Property Act ( 18 of 1937), Section 3(3) thereof, repealed by Hindu Succession Act,1956, has its legal implications. The attempt, to protract the proceedings, having lost at all the levels, this naive exercise of review is apparently sought. I do not see any error in the order under review. 3 CA NO.16639/2010 IN RAST 35098/2010 WITH CA NO.16640/2010 IN RAST 35098/2010 Consequently, review petition and application for stay, dismissed. Mr.Patil informs, original plaintiff has expired during pendency of appeal. Learned executing Court, if pointed out specifically, with death certificate, to take note thereof. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/16640-10ca