1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR M.C.A.NO.1238 of 2009 in F.A.No.44 of 1992 (Review) Pramod Dhundiraj Deshmukh ..vs.. Union of India and anr. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 22nd June,, 2010. This review application has been filed against the judgment and order passed by this court on 16/12/2008. The first appeal was preferred by the present applicant against the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The appeal came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the said Tribunal. The appellant feels aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the appeal. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate, in as much as, civil judge in a similar case had awarded compensation at a higher rate in land acquisition case No.168 of 1991 decided by the Civil Judge on 5th of April, 1992. He submits that the present applicant was entitled to the compensation as determined by 2 the Civil Judge in that land acquisition case. He submits that although the copy was available with the counsel and was handed over by the client, the same was not filed by the Advocate and the client, therefore, should not suffer for the lapse on the part of the lawyer. The Tribunal has decided the land acquisition proceedings by order dated 22/6/1991. When those proceedings were decided by the Tribunal, the decision in land acquisition Case No.168 of 1991 was not rendered by the Civil Judge, in as much as ,the said decision was rendered by the Civil Judge in 1993. In any case, the copy of the judgment of Civil Judge could not have been produced before the Tribunal and Tribunal would not have been bound by the subsequently rendered decision. The Tribunal was bound to render the decision on the basis of the evidence tendered before it. This evidence could not have been tendered and could not have been considered by the Tribunal at all. The learned counsel submits that this could have been produced before this court and this court could have taken into consideration the judgment of the Civil Judge while deciding the appeal. It is clear from the statement made in the application for production of the document that this document was available with the counsel but the same was not tendered before the court. If order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is read, it is apparent that if the document was available with the party then the provisions of order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted. It is only when the evidence is subsequently discovered that the provisions 3 of order 47 of C.P.C. will be attracted. Since this document was available and was not tendered before the court, the provisions of order 47 of C.P.C. would not be attracted and review would not be possible. There is no apparent mistake on the face of the record. In view of this, there is no substance in the review application. Same is dismissed. The application for production of document also stands rejected. JUDGE. chute