1 RPC 8-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.8 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.461 OF 2009 Smt.Urmila Padmakar Waikar .Petitioners & ors V/s. Smt.Sarlaben Kevalchand Rathod .Respondent Mr.Lexim i/b.Lexim Associates, Advocate, for the Petitioners Mr.S.K.Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the order dated 23rd June, 2010 ought to be reviewed because MHADA has given a notice that building has to be demolished and re-constructed. He states that his client would carry out re-construction 2 RPC 8-10 within a period of one year and would give one tenement of equal dimensions to the respondents with self contained toilet. He places a reliance on Judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Board of Control for Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club, reported in AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 592 on the question of maintainability of review. Even after considering the principles laid down there is no error apparent in the order dated 23rd June, 2010 or any new fact or any new sufficient reason for reviewing the order. Notice by MHADA or its consequences is an independent matter and if under the rules or re-develop the applicant can demolish and re-develop the premises and respondent is entitled to tenement, law will take its course. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the petitioners are ladies in the tenement and their privacy is affected if the Judgment is 3 RPC 8-10 given effect to. This also cannot be a consideration since this factual aspect which has been dealt with by the Courts who have rendered concurrent findings. The learned Counsel states that this point was not dealt with by the Courts since the petitioners were minors at that time and since they have now grown up, there is need of privacy. These two points cannot be a ground or reason or sufficient cause for reviewing the order. If there is any error any Judgment which can be corrected, the applicant can always invoke appellate jurisdiction. 4. Review Petition is, therefore, rejected. At the request of learned Counsel for petitioners status-quo to continue for a period of eight weeks, to enable the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)