1 WP 9008/09 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9008 OF 2009 New Malinee Cooperative Housing Society Limited .. Petitioner V/s Trapinex Eastern Private Limited .. Respondent Mr. Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Sachin S. Punde for the petitioner. Ms. R. Nichani with Mr. Manish Acharya i/b Pandya Gandhi & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard both sides. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 1 August 2009 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, rejecting the petitioner’s application bearing Misc. Application No.169 of 2008 in Review Petition No.1 of 2005. 3. In a suit (Suit No. 5896 of 1993) filed by the petitioner society, a decree for specific performance was passed against the respondent directing it to execute the sale deed in respect of 2 WP 9008/09 the suit property. According to the petitioner, there was some error in the description of the suit property, on account of which the petitioner filed Review Petition No.1 of 2005. By an order dated 20 June 2006, the City Civil Court allowed the review petition and corrected the description and also issued certain directions regarding the manner of execution of the sale deed as also the right of the respondent for development of a portion of the property. Thereafter on 20 July 2006 the petitioner made an application in the disposed of review petition for summoning the Assistant Engineer, Building Proposal, K/E Ward, Mumbai Municipal Corporation and to give him necessary directions. By an order dated 10 August 2006, the Court disposed of the said application by issuing certain directions directing the Registrar of the Court to convey the property within 16 weeks to the extent of total area of 3133.18 sq.ms. as certified by the Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation. Thereafter the petitioner filed Misc. Application No.169 of 2008 in the disposed of review petition for making certain corrections in the plan. By an order dated 1 August 2009, the trial court dismissed the miscellaneous application. That order is impugned in the present writ petition. 4. In my view, the very filing of the Misc. Application No.169 3 WP 9008/09 of 2008 was misconceived. The original suit has been disposed of. The review petition has been disposed of. The trial court, therefore, has become functus officio and thereafter no further proceedings for correction of the plans could be initiated in the trial court. All that the petitioner could do was to apply for execution of the order as originally passed and as modified in the review petition. The order passed in the review petition was not challenged before any Court and was become final. As such, there was no occasion for the parties to go behind the decree passed in the suit and modified in review and seek any further directions in the disposed of review petition. If the sale deed is not being executed in accordance with the order passed in the review petition and the plan is not as per the decree, it is open to the petitioner to put the decree to execution and make an application to the executing court for direction to execute the conveyance in accordance with the decree as finally passed by the Court in the review petition. 5. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)