: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.16717 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.709 OF 2003 M/s.Fashion & Anr. ... Applicants V/s. Vinayak Narhar Joshi & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.N.V. Walawalkar i/b Amit Borkar for Applicants None for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 10, 2009 P.C.: The civil application has been filed for condoning the delay in preferring the review application. The delay is substantial, as the order was passed in 2003 and the review has been filed in 2008. However for the reasons indicated in the civil application, it is allowed. : 2 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.16717 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.709 OF 2003 M/s.Fashion & Anr. ... Applicants V/s. Vinayak Narhar Joshi & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.N.V. Walawalkar i/b Amit Borkar for Applicants None for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 10, 2009 P.C.: This review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 15.12.2003 in Writ Petition No.709 of 2003. According to Mr.Walawalkar, appearing for the review petitioner, the exact description of the suit premises was not brought to the notice of the Court and therefore there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 2. In my opinion, no case for review has been made out. Except for the substitution of the word “dismissed” in line 13 of the order daed 15.12.2003 by the word “allowed”, no other changes are required. Accordingly, the review petition is rejected.