IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6863 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO. 6863 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO. 6863 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6857 OF 2007 Jayesh D.Jhaveri (HUF).... Petitioner versus The Secretary, Khusman CHS Ltd. ...... Respondent. Shri U.R. Mankapure for the petitioner. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 18TH OCTOBER, 2007 DATED; 18TH OCTOBER, 2007 DATED; 18TH OCTOBER, 2007 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The present petitioner is the member of the respondent housing society. The petitioner filed a dispute and claimed certain sum of money from the society and the society also filed a dispute against the petitioner and claimed the amount towards the petitioner’s contribution for carrying out the repairs and outgoings. The Co-operative Court by a common award has disposed of both the disputes. The dispute filed by the petitioner came to be rejected whereas the dispute filed by the society has been partly allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 97,199/- together with interest at the rate of 12% with effect from 1-9-2002 which comes to Rs.1,44,398/-. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Co-operative court in both the suits, two appeals came to be preferred before the Co-operative Appellate Court. In the appeals the appellants filed stay application seeking stay of the money decree. Record reveals that the Appellate court, by consent of the respective Advocates, heard the Appeals on merit and disposed ofthe same. The Appeals filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner filed a Review application making wild allegations against the concerned Judge so also the lawyer. The grievance in the Review application was that the appeals were disposed of without calling for the record and without granting proper opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter. The impugned order observes that as both the parties found it convenient, they agreed and argued the appeal and the appeals thus came to be disposed of. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Appellate Court proceeded to hear the main matter without consent of the concerned advocates, as contended. The impugned order observes that as both the advocates agreed for decision of the appeal, and as only a limited question was involved they argued the matter, and, thus the Appellate Court decided the Appeals. The Review application has been rejected after holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record so far as the Appellate judgment is concerned. In the present petition only the order passed in Review application dated 11-9-2006 is challenged. 2. Perused the order. The same cannot be said to be illegal warranting any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence writ petitions are summarily dismissed. ...