1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 6 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION NO. 6 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION NO. 6 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1007 OF 2000 Shri Anandrao Chandraji Patil Since deceased through his legal heirs :- 1) Prabhavati Anandrao Patil & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. Shri Shivaji Pargonda Hulyalkar ..Respondent Mr. Amit Borkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate (appeared in CRA) CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 7th August, 2008. DATE: 7th August, 2008. DATE: 7th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Borkar, the learned Counsel for the review petitioners, who claim to be the L.rs. of Anandrao Chandraji Patil, who was the respondent in CAR no.1007 of 2000. The Revision Application was allowed 2 by this Court by judgment and order dated 28.3.2008. The learned counsel points out that on that day none was present for the respondent and after hearing Mr. Warunjikar, the learned Counsel for the applicant therein, the Revision Application was allowed. He also points out that long before that date, the said respondent Anandrao had died on 12.7.2007 and this fact was brought to the notice of the Advocate for the revision applicant. The revision applicant had also filed Civil Application No.3 of 2008 for bringing the L.rs. but that application was also dismissed and as a result, the Civil Revision Application was abated. However, on 28.3.2008 when the Revision Application was heard, these facts were not brought to the notice of the Court and therefore that judgment and order is liable to be recalled. 2. Mr. Warunjikar, Advocate, who was appearing for the revision applicant is present before the Court. However, he makes a statement that the brief has been taken away by the revision applicant from him and that after he was informed about the present application,he had contacted the said revision applicant as well as his advocate but they are not responding. The record reveals that notice of the present application was sent by Regd. Post A.D. and the revision applicant, who is 3 respondent in the present application, has not claimed that packet and therefore it was returned. As such, it was proper service. 3. In view of the above circumstances, it appears that the judgment and order dated 28.3.2008 was passed in Revision Application No.1007/2008 without being aware that the respondent therein was dead. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be necessary to recall that order. 4. Therefore, the present Review Application is allowed and the judgment and order dated 28.3.2008 in Civil Revision Application.No.1007 of 2008 is hereby recalled. The said Civil Revision Application along with the Civil Applications, if any be placed before the regular Court for appropriate directions. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)