1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.5 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.74 OF 2009 Shri Hanumanta Timma Pujari (Since decease through L/rs.) and 20 Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Shri Narhari Balku Kawade (Since deceased through L/rs.) & 10 Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Atul P. Vanarse for the Petitioners. Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Respondents. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2009. P.C. Heard Mr. Vanarse, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Limaye, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. By the Order dated 25th November, 2008 the above Second Appeal was dismissed on the ground of concurrent findings of fact of both the Lower Courts below that the Respondents are the owners of the suit property and the Petitioners are in unauthorized possession of the same. 3. Mr. Vanarse, learend Counsel, now submits that in fact the suit of the Respondents was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 as applicable to Maharashtra, in as much as the map/sketch of the encroached portion is not annexed to the plaint filed by the Respondent. I do not find any merit in the submission as the Rule 3 of Order 7 was substituted 2 by the Bombay Amendment w.e.f. 1st October, 1983 and the present suit is filed as long back as in the year 1978 and therefore, same cannot be construed to the prejudice of the interest of the Respondents. 4. Mr.Vanarse, learned Counsel, further submitted that his Civil Applications for bringing the legal heirs and representatives of some of the deceased Appellants were not disposed of and therefore, the Second Appeal itself could not have been disposed of. However from the title of the said Second Appeal, it is clear that the heirs of the said deceased Appellants were already brought on record. It is also admitted by Mr.Vanarse, that he had filed Vakalatnama on behalf of legal heirs and representatives of the said deceased Appellants. Admittedly, the Second Appeal was disposed of, after hearing Mr. Vanarse and therefore, there is no merit in the said submission. In the above said facts, I do not find any merit in the Review Petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 5. Mr.Limaye, learned Counsel for the Respondents, at this stage pointed out that the number of Regular Civil Suit mentioned in the second line of the order dated 25th November, 2008 is incorrectly typed and the correct number is Regular Civil Suit 1389 of 1978. This position is not disputed by Mr.Vanarse. The Office is therefore, directed to correct the said mistake. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)