1 rpf5-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 5 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.933 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. ..... Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the petitioners. Mr. P. J. Thorat for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2011. P.C.: Review is sought of interim order passed during the pendency of the Appeal. The first grievance is that though order dated 8th April, 201l observes that no reply to the application has been filed, in fact the reply dated dated 28th January, 2011 was very much on record. The second contention is that though the interim relief operative during the pendency of the suit was continued, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment and order, the appellants 2 rpf5-11 were not entitled to the said relief. 2. The order dated 8th April, 2011 notes that time was sought earlier by the review petitioner to file further reply and accordingly time was granted on 18th March, 2011. The reference made in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 8th April, 2011 is to the further reply which was not filed inspite of grant of time on the earlier date. 3. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. The order sought to be reviewed is an interim order passed in the Appeal. Even, otherwise, there is no ground for review. Hence, petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)