1 rp211-10 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.211 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1953 OF 2008 Smt.Kanta Kapoor and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Smt.Rajkumari Triloksingh Gund and Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Prachi Khandge i/b M/s.M.V.Vashi and Associates for the petitioners Mr.Sawant i/b Mr.Rajesh Parab for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : December 21, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Vashi appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Perused the review petition and particularly the grounds seeking review of the order dated 26.3.08 in this writ petition. The order is passed by the court proceeding on the basis that the original petitioner no.6 is residing in the suit premises. Request was made on behalf of the petitioner no.6 and considering that the premises are occupied and are in her possession for a long duration, the petitioners did not have press the writ petition but were satisfied if long time is granted to vacate the premises. Petitioner no.6 was stated to be interested in challenging the decree for possession in respect of the suit premises as she was the one who contested the suit for eviction and 2 rp211-10 possession thereof. The other petitioners were not interested in challenging the decree but joined the petitioner no.6 as their interests were common. There was one advocate engaged. The statement was made by the advocate appearing for the petitioner on instructions and that is how the time to vacate was sought. 2. There is much substance in the complaint of Mr.Sawant, learned counsel appearing for decree holder, original respondent (plaintiff) that this review petition is not bona fide. The order under review was passed on 26.3.08. Time of one year and more was sought to vacate which came to be granted till 31.3.09. 10 days before the time stipulated was to expire that this review petition is instituted. 3. There is no error apparent nor the interest of justice require any interference in review jurisdiction. Once the factual position is noted and that all the petitioners had engaged one advocate, then, the statement made that original petitioner no.6 being alone in possession and requires time to vacate the suit premises after concurrent decrees of eviction, does not reflect such state of things, which are unusual or unfair. The court proceeded on the basis that the counsel had authority to make the statements on instructions. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the review petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs in this peculiar case. ( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. )