43-ia-7377-26.doc IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7377 OF 2026 IN REVIEW PETITION ST.NO.26840 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3521 OF 2021 Ashok Pandurang Pimpale & Ors. .. Applicants/ Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Ms. Divya Parab, Advocate (through VC) for Petitioners.  Ms. V.R. Raje, APP for Respondent No.1 - State. ................… CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Ms. Parab, learned Advocate for the Applicants/Petitioners and Ms. Raje, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State. 2. There is an interim application which states that there is a delay of 2 years and 130 days in filing the Review Petition. That delay is condoned for the reasons stated in the interim application. 3. Interim application accordingly stands disposed of. 4. Review Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. 5. Review is sought of the order dated 22.04.2024. By virtue of the said order, the parties who are in the Second Appeal Court in view Meera Jadhav 1 of 2 MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Digitally signed by MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2026.09.23 15:16:33 +0530 43-ia-7377-26.doc of the decree passed by the Trial Court were directed to approach the Appellate Court with their grievance if any. However, the Review Petitioners’ case is that before Trial Court on the very day when the decree was passed, application filed by Plaintiffs for impleadment of additional properties under Order VI Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was pending. This can be agitated before the Appellate Court. 6. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open by this Court to be agitated in the Second Appeal in accordance with law. Hence there is no prima facie error apparent found on the face of record while passing the order dated 22.04.2024 as the said order does not determine any substantiate rights of the parties. 7. Needless to state that this Court has not opined on any of the merits of the matter as agitated in the Review Petition and all contentions are expressly kept open. 8. Hence, in view of above, Review Petition is dismissed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Meera Jadhav 2 of 2