1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A. 9062 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 81 OF 1990 (Vasant Vithoba Malode vs. Champatrao Vithoba Malode & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 11, 2008. Heard Shri Vyawahare, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Joharapurkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mrs. Joshi , learned counsel for respondents No.2(a) to 2(d). The matter was before this Court yesterday for the first time and as the name of Advocate Joshi, did not appear in the cause list, it was adjourned to today. Today Mrs. Joshi appears and says that respondents No. 2(a) to 2(d) want to engage senior advocate, the request is rejected. After rejection of her request, she says that the matter should be taken up tomorrow, that request is also rejected and lastly she requests that the matter be listed at 2.30 PM today, that request is also rejected. The issue in relation to Will produced belatedly was directed to be decided by 31.12.2008 2 by reasoned order, after imposing cost of Rs.50,000/-. This Court then found that such recourse was necessary to honour the wish of the deceased. Thereafter, the learned counsel contended that the cost of Rs.50,000/- could not have been saddled upon the respondents who wanted to rely upon Will and an application for review was filed within limitation i.e. on 2.6.2008. The contesting respondent was also served with copies and reply was also filed on 2.7.2008. No steps whatsoever were taken thereafter to get the Civil Application circulated, the matter has ultimately been listed/ circulated after efforts made by Respondent No.1. In these circumstances, when the office listed the matter, the adjournment was sought for as mentioned above. It is apparent that the application for review has been moved within time and the conduct of the applicants therein does not appear to be bonafide. Even in this situation, I have considered the application on merits with the assistance of Shri Joharapurkar and Shri Vyawahare, who is with the applicants. I do not find any merit in the said application as this Court has, only to honour the wish of the deceased, permitted particular course of action. The review applicant is protracting the 3 matter as he is in possession of properties. Civil Application is rejected subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur. JUDGE *GS.