NARAYAN CHANDRA DEY Vs. S. M. MUNDIWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the appeal is called out for hearing along with the review application being R.V.W. 195 of 2009 none appears on behalf of the respondent/petitioner in the review application, nor any prayer for adjournment has been made on behalf of the said respondent/petitioner in the review application.

(2.) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/opposite party in the review application submits that such review application is not maintainable and it should be dismissed. It appears that by an order dated 10.09.2009 a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss CAN 3834 of 2009 which was an application for recalling of the order dated 31.03.2009 passed in the instant appeal. It will appear from the said order dated 10.09.2009 itself that by the said order dated 31.03.2009 a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to formulate substantial questions of law in the instant appeal (First Miscellaneous Appeal) which arose out of an order of remand of a certain suit passed by the learned First Appellate Court. It appears that by an order dated 10.09.2009 the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the said application being CAN 3834 of 2009 on merits. The present application being R.V.W. 195 of 2009 is an application for review of the said order dated 10.09.2009. Even though the said CAN 3834 of 2009 was described as an application for recalling of a certain order it was in effect an application for review of the order dated 31.03.2009.

(3.) IN such circumstances, this Court finds that the present application for review should be dismissed as it cannot be entertained under the provisions of Order 47, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. The appeal is taken up for hearing. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned Advocate for the defendant/respondent appeared and made his submissions.