ca8680.04 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8680 OF 2004 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 767 OF 1997 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders | CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 17 th MARCH, 2011. 1 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 210 days occurred in presenting the review application. 2 Considering the contentions raised in the application, application deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Delay of 210 days occurred in presenting the review application stands condoned. Civil application stands disposed of. ( R.M. BORDE) JUDGE dyb ca8680.04 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8679 OF 2004 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 767 OF 1997 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders | CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 17 th MARCH, 2011. 1 This review application is directed against the order passed by this court on 25-9-2003 in Civil Revision Application no. 767/1997. 2 Applicants have raised challenge to the order passed by the executing court directing release of the property which is stated to have been purchased by respondents. The property is attached in execution of decree for maintenance secured by plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit no. 154/1984. It was pointed out that respondent – purchaser has purchased the ca8680.04 3 property by getting sale-deed executed on 30-3-1982 from husband of the applicant / petitioner. Thus, purchase of the property was prior to institution of suit for maintenance. This court therefore did not deem it appropriate to cause interference in the order passed by the executing court. 3 Considering the nature of the controversy and after hearing arguments of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I am convinced that there is no merit in the review application and the same therefore stands rejected. ( R.M. BORDE) JUDGE dyb