1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 25595 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7613 OF 2009 Shri Seva Vyavasayik Ekta Sangh & Ors............................ Petitioners vs Mr. R.D. Sethna Scholarship Fund ................................ Respondent .. Mr. R.V. Govilkar i/b Saran Aradhye for Petitioners Mr. Zal Andhyarujina a/w Ms. F. Behram Kamdin a/w Ms. S. Deshpande i/b M/s. FZB Associate for Respondents .. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J DATE: 13th November, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Review is sought of order dated 5th August, 2009 passed by this court in the Writ Petition. The Review Petitioners are the Petitioners in the Writ Petition. Paragraph 2 and 3 of the said order read thus: “2] There is an affidavit filed by Farrokh Minoo Rustomji, the Chief Executive of the R.D.Sethna 2 Scholarship Fund. In the affidavit he has stated that as a constituted attorney of the trustees of respondent, he verifies and affirms the contents of the written statement dated 20th July, 2004 and the say dated 30th September, 2004. In the said affidavit it is stated that a statement in paragraph 16 of the written statement has been incorporated through oversight. The order dated 7th January, 2009 passed by this court records that the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner is a curable defect. In fact by the said order, time was granted to the respondent to ratify the written statement. 3] By the said affidavit which is referred to above, now the respondent has ratified what is stated in the written statement and reply signed by the said Goyal except one sentence in paragraph 16 of the written statement. The only objection of the petitioners to the written statement was that the person who has signed and verified written statement was not authorised by the respondent to do so. In view of what is stated in the aforesaid affidavit and the order dated 7th January, 2009 3 passed by this court is not necessary to entertain the petition and the same is accordingly rejected. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the order dated 7th January, 2009 passed by this Court in the Writ Petition. He submitted that the ratification of the written statement cannot be made by filing an affidavit in this Court and the ratification ought to have been made before the trial court. He invited my attention to the order dated 17th April, 2009 passed by the trial court. He submitted that said order was passed during the pendency of the Writ Petition. The attention of this Court could not be invited to the said order when the Writ Petition was heard by this Court. He submitted that by the said order dated 17th April, 2009 passed by the Trial Court, the prayer of the respondent to ratify the written statement in terms of liberty granted by this Court by order dated 7th January, 2009 stands rejected. He, therefore, submitted that this Court has committed an error when it was held that by an affidavit filed in this Court the written statement stands ratified. 3 I have considered the submissions, order dated 7th January, 2009 passed by this court and in particular clause 2 reads thus: “2. There can be no difficulty in taking the view that the objection raised on behalf of the Petitioner is a 4 curable defect. Counsel for the Respondent in all fairness submits that the grievance made in this Petition will stand addressed, if the Respondents were to ratify the Written Statement and cure the defect in the Written Statement, which has already been presented in the Court.” 4 In view of the said order, it cannot be disputed that written statement could have been always ratified. The order dated 17th April, 2009 is passed on application dated 29th January, 2009. By the said application, a prayer was made by the defendants for taking additional written statement on record. By the order dated 17th April, 2009, the said application has been rightly rejected in as much as the defendants had given an undertaking to ratify the written statement, however, without ratifying the written statement the defendants tried to file additional written statement. In the affidavit filed before this Court, there is a clear ratification of the written statement dated 20th July, 2004. 5 There is no error appearing on the face of the record. Review Petition is rejected. Judge.