1 RA St.1150/2011 with CA 629/11 in CRA 27/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.629/2011 IN RA ST.NO.1150/2011 IN CRA NO.27/2010 ( Gautam s/o Navnath Kamble Vs. Kalpana d/o Vasantrao Raibole ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. NP Patil-Jamalpurkar, Adv. for Applicant/s; Mr. RB Deshmukh, Adv. For Respondent. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 28 th April, 2011. 1) Heard. Considering the delay to be of 30 days, in making review application, properly explained, the delay is condoned, CA No. 629/2011 is allowed as above. Register the Review Petition. 2) Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties in Review Petition finally. Counsel for the respondent waives service in Review Petition. 3) Two aspects are urged by Mr.Patil, - 1) in spite of service upon the review applicant as respondent in the CRA, he did not participate, he needs to be re-heard by reviewing the order dated 16th November, 2010 passed in CRA No.27/2010; 2) The fair price shop license, for which, a heirship certificate was sought and entertained in the CRA, is not a property, not a transferrable 2 RA St.1150/2011 with CA 629/11 in CRA 27/2010 license, and consequently, the directions of this Court in the CRA dated 16th November, 2010, call for review. 4) After going through the order under challenge in review petition, I find, the legal position in terms of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was elaborately discussed, and based on the same,even if status of the review applicant – Gautam, either to be husband of deceased – Sanghmitra or Sumitra, is in wrappers, without further touching to that aspect, the directions of issuance of heirship certificate was confirmed, by setting aside the order of the learned District judge. 5) The word `property' would include not only `immovable property' but also records, `accounts and license'. 6) I do not see any error in the order, inviting the provisions of order 47 of CPC to review the same. The Review Petition lacks merit, dismissed. 7) If the order passed in CRA No.27/2010 dated 16.11.2010 is not yet implemented, as Mr.Patil says, the same shall to remain suspended till 14th June, 2011. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/ 3 RA St.1150/2011 with CA 629/11 in CRA 27/2010