1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION NO.146 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.22 OF 2009 Jayshree w/o Shyam Hundiwala ... PETITIONER VERSUS Laldas s/o Pannalal Shah & ors. . ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.S. Nirkhee, Advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 25th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (original plaintiff). Shri Nirkhee, learned counsel for the petitioner made statement that he tried to serve the notice of the present Review Petition upon the learned counsel Shri S.V. Gangapurwala for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, but Shri Gangapurwala, learned counsel refused to accept the same. The said statemnet is accepted and taken on record. 2 2. By the present Review Petition, the petitioner has sought to review the order dated 13.7.2009, passed by this Court in Appeal from Order No.22/2009, contending that it has been erroneously observed in the said order that there is no basis and foundation spelt out in the application in respect of the apprehension nor there is any cogent evidence in respect of the alleged alienation of the suit property, but public notices were issued in the local newspaper in that respect, which are annexed at Exhibits B and C. It is also contended that erroneous observation was made in the said order that two sisters and one brother were not impleaded in the suit, which apparently gives fatal blow to the case of the plaintiff, but in fact the petitioner has made the application for addition of her two sisters and brother being necessary parties in the said suit. 3. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the public notices were issued in the local newspaper which are annexed at Exhibits B and C, on perusal of the said notices, firstly, the public notice (Exhibit B) was not issued on behalf of the petitioner herein but the said was issued on behalf of other person namely Bachubhai Bhuralal Patel and, therefore, the said notice has no concern with the case of the petitioner herein. Moreover, on perusal of public notice at Exhibit C, it is seen that the said notice was in respect of long tenure of lease- hold rights and not regarding the alleged apprehension of 3 alienation of the property by the respondent No.1. Hence, the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner bear no substance. 4. As regards the another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred application to implead two sisters and one brother in the suit, on 23.7.2009, it is pertinent to note that the impugned order was passed on 13.7.2009 and the petitioner has subsequently applied before the concerned Court i.e. on 23.7.2009 and hence, the observations in the impugned order dated 13.7.2009 in that respect are correct and subsequent Application dated 23.7.2009 preferred by petitioner before concerned Court, is afterthought. 5. In the circumstances, there is no apparent patent error on the face of record in the order passed by this Court in Appeal From Order No.22/2009 on 13.7.2009 and hence, present Review Petition bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/rp146.09