:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 521 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2007 M/s. Ishwar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Ashok Chadha and ors. ..Respondents Mr. K.Y. Mandlik for petitioners. Mr. Y.R. Naik for respondent nos.2 to 11, 13 to 21, 23, 24, 26 to 28, 30, 32 to 34, 36 and 38. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. MARLAPALLE,J. MARLAPALLE,J. Date Date Date : July 21, 2008. : July 21, 2008. : July 21, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Mandlik the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Naik the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 11, 13 to 21, 23, 24, 26 to 28, 30, 32 to 34, 36 and 38. 2. By this application the petitioners are praying for modification of the order dated 4/5/2007 and more particularly they pray for deletion of the following sentence in para 15 of the said order:- :2: "The sale of health clubs in favour of defendant no.2 and his wife on 29/9/1996 is hereby declared as null and void ab initio." 3. Admittedly, the said order was the subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.20993 and 20840 of 2007 and both these SLPs came to be dismissed summarily on 10/1/2008 by the Supreme Court. 4. I have heard Mr. Mandlik as well as Mr. Naik, perused the averments made in the application as well as in the reply, including the grounds of review and I do not find any case to entertain this review petition. 5. However, it was submitted by Mr. Mandlik that the bungalow of petitioner no.2 (original defendant no.2) stands on a plot area admeasuring 929.30 sq.mtrs. and the same has been purchased by him under the Sale Deed registered on 11/5/1985. He claims that he has not consumed the total FSI available on his bungalow plot (10,000 sq.mtrs.) and some FSI is still :3: available. Mr. Naik the learned counsel appearing for the respondents disputes this contention and states that the defendant no.2 is not the owner of plot area admeasuring 929.30 sq.mtrs. This is an issue which will have to be decided in appropriate proceedings and it cannot be considered in this review petition. At the same time, in such proceedings the issue regarding the exact area under the ownership of the defendant no.2 will have to be considered on its own merits and keeping in mind the evidence that the respective parties may place on record. 6. The Civil Application is rejected with above clarifications. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)