1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.219 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2876 OF 2007 Fairview Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Savinder S. Rekhi and others ..Defendants. .... Mr. Kevic Setalwad i/b D H Law Associates for the Plaintiff. Mr. Snehal Shah i/b M/s. Purnanand & Co & M/s. S.B. Kotak & Co. for Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.H. Mehta for Defendant No.6. Mr. S.U. Kamdar with Ms. Deepa Ahuja for Defendant No.8. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 21st January, 2008. P.C. : 1. Notice of Motion 3872 of 2007 was disposed of by an order dated 19th December, 2007. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the order of the Hon' ble Division Bench in Appeal dated 15th January, 2008 wherein, it has been observed that during the course of the hearing of the Appeal certain issues were being raised by counsel appearing for the Appellant which have not been noticed in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment. The Hon'ble 2 Division Bench observed that there is some dispute whether this issue was raised before the Single Judge. Accordingly counsel appearing for the Appellant sought two weeks time which was granted to enable the Appellant to take such steps as it deems fit. The prayer which has been made in the Motion is as follows : “a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate orders and/or directions to clarify that the order dated 19th December, 2007 passed on Notice of Motion No.3872 of 2007 came to be passed after considering submissions made by the Plaintiff with regard to the documents annexed to the Plaint, in connection with the conditions imposed by the Defendant No.6 for permitting development on the Suit Plot. b. Such order orders/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the specific circumstances of the present case.” 2. The Learned Counsel for the Defendants objected to the maintainability of the Motion on the ground that it is not a Motion for review and that no clarification of the sort can be sought. 3. The arguments in the Notice of Motion (3872 of 2007) were opened by the learned junior counsel. The Court was requested that Learned Senior Counsel who had been briefed in 3 the matter may be permitted to argue the case after he was free from another engagement. This was permitted by the Court in the interests of justice. The submissions which have been recorded in paragraph 6 of the order dated 19th December, 2007 were the only submissions that were pressed at the hearing by the learned senior counsel. In these circumstances, no further clarification is necessary. The Notice of Motion is disposed of.