1 (NMS1290.11 in RP(L) No. 43/11 with RP(L) no.43/11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1290 OF 2011 (For condonation of delay) IN REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.43 OF 2011 WITH REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.43 OF 2011 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.69 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.4800 OF 1995 Mrs. Hamida wife of Hanif Payak ...Petitioner. V/s Hanif Ibrahim Payak & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr. Machhindra A. Patil for the Petitioner. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 6th July, 2011 P.C.:- 1. This notice of motion is taken out for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondents are served. He undertakes to file 2 (NMS1290.11 in RP(L) No. 43/11 with RP(L) no.43/11) affidavit of service within two weeks from today. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. None appears on behalf of the Respondents though they are served. 3. For the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the notice of motion, delay caused in filing this notice of motion is condoned. Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of and Review Petition is taken up for hearing. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that this Court had dismissed the Contempt Petition which was taken out by the Petitioner herein on the ground that no undertaking was given by the Respondents and so far as the order of maintenance is concerned, it being an executable order, Respondents have not committed contempt of this Court. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 14/2/2001 in Contempt Petition No.48 of 1998. He submitted that the Respondents had given an undertaking that he would not alienate or part with possession or create third party rights in respect of the row house. He also submitted that the Respondents were directed to pay maintenance of Rs 2000/- per month to the Petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the observations made by this Court in the order under review 3 (NMS1290.11 in RP(L) No. 43/11 with RP(L) no.43/11) wrongly mention that no undertaking was given by the Respondents. 5. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. Perusal of the said order dated 14/2/2001 clearly indicates that the undertaking was given in respect row house only and not in respect of payment of maintenance. This being the position, it will not be possible to review the said order since none of the conditions prescribed under Order XLVII Rule 1 are present in this review petition. Petitioner, however, is at liberty to execute the order and seek appropriate relief in the execution proceedings. 6. Review Petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (NMS1290.11 in RP(L) No. 43/11 with RP(L) no.43/11)