1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.15436 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETTION NO.560 OF 1995 WITH REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.15436 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETTION NO.560 OF 1995 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr Rajesh S Patil, for the petitioner. Mr G.H.Keluskar, for respondent no.2. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 26/03/2010 PC: Heard learned counsel for the Parties. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Civil Application for condonation of delay is made absolute and the Review Petition is heard on merits. This Review Petition seeks review of the Judgment and order dated 27.3.2008 passed in Writ Petition T 2 Nos.203 of 1995 and 506 of 1995. The dispute pertains to a room, admesuring 10' x 10' situate at C.P.Tank Area, Girgaon, Mumbai. The suit was decreed exparte on 29.10.1991 and immediately thereafter the decree was executed and possession of the premises was handed over to the respondents-plaintiffs. The decree was carried in three appeals, one filed by the original defendant no 1 and other two appeals by defendant no. 2. The appeal filed by the petitioner- defendant no.1 was dismissed, whereas the appeal for restoration of possession filed by the original defendant no.2 was dismissed and his another appeal for setting aside the ex-parte decree was allowed. Against the orders and judgments passed by the appeal court, the two writ petitions were filed, which came to be disposed of by the judgment and order dated 27.3.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the 3 petition, petitioner no.1, i.e. respondent no.1 in the Review Petition, died and his heirs were brought on record. Therefore, the decree became final against the legal heirs of the petitioner-respondent no.1 in the review petition. In my opinion, this submission cannot be and need not be entertained and the Judgment and order dated 27.3.2008 cannot be reviewed on this ground. Though petitioner no.1 Girdharilal Dodia died, petitioner no.2 Vaikunthbhai Dodia, his son, was very much alive and had sufficient authority in law to prosecute the writ petition further. That apart, possession of the disputed premises admeasuring 10' x 10' was taken by petitioner no.1 when he was alive in 1991 itself. In view thereof, I find no merit in the Review Petition. The Review Petition is dismissed. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) 4