1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR M.C.A. NO. 1109/2009 IN S.A. No. 387/2004 (Decided) 1. AKBAR ALI S/O NOOR MOHD. GILANI R/O MOHADA, TQ. KELAPUR, DIST YAVATMAL .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. MOHADA VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, MOHADA AND ANR. OFFICE AT MOHADA, TQ. KELAPUR, DIST YAVATMAL 2. SHRI LAXMINARAYAN S/O KANHAJI DHOPE R/O MOHADA, TQ. KELAPUR, DIST YAVATMAL .. RESPONDENT/S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.R. Joshi, counsel for the applicant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. By this miscellaneous civil application, the applicant seeks review of the judgment dated 27 & 28th of August, 2009 passed in Second Appeal No.387/2004. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant by passing on a so-called original of Exh.53 to the Court that the observations made by this Court in paragraphs 9, 11 and 13 of the judgment are incorrect. 2 It is necessary to note that the counsel for the applicant, Shri M.R. Joshi, was not appearing in the second appeal at the time it was argued finally and the appellant- applicant was represented by Advocate Shri A.M. Gordey and Shri M.T. Dhatrak. It is conspicuous to note that at the relevant time while arguing the matter, the so called original was passed on to the Court but, the Court had pointed out the glaring difference between the so-called original and Exh.53, which according to the applicant is the certified copy of the so-called original document, which was in possession of the applicant and which is also passed on to the Court at the time of hearing, today. This Court had, at the time of hearing of the second appeal, noticed that there was a great variance in the two documents, i.e. the so-called original, which is tried to be shown to the Court and the document at Exh.53. In fact, the blanks filled in both the cyclostyled documents, are not tallying with each other. Both these documents are not one and the same documents and Exh.53, which is filed on record cannot be said to be a certified copy of the document, which is sought to be passed on to the Court at the time of hearing of this miscellaneous civil application. The earlier counsels, 3 who had appeared in the matter in second appeal, had immediately asked this Court not to mention about this so- called original document, which according to them was not found to be similar to the document, which is filed at Exh.53. The appellant has filed this review application by making the change in the counsel and has tried to make the submissions on similar lines though they were negated by the Court on the earlier occasion. A mention of these facts was not made in the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. These facts are, however, now mentioned in this order as the appellant may take a further chance of showing this document before the Court where the appellant would desire to challenge the judgment passed by this Court on 27th & 28th of August, 2009. It is already observed in the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed, that the document at Exh.53 is extremely doubtful and it now appears that the conduct of the appellant-applicant is equally doubtful as the appellant was present in the Court and was aware of what transpired in the Court when the matter was earlier argued in second appeal before the judgment dated 27th & 28th of August, 2009, was passed. It appears that the so-called original, which is now passed on to the Court, has been created later on to fill in the lacuna in the document at Exh.53. 4 No ground has been made out for reviewing the judgment passed by this Court on 27th & 28th of August, 2009. The miscellaneous civil application is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). JUDGE APTE