1712mca1061.11.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Misc.Civil Application No. 1061 of 2011 (In W.P. No. 3950/07 [D]) Smt. Anuja Anil Deshpande & ors. ...Versus... Reform Club Ltd. Yavatmal & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.R. Deshpande Advocate for applicants. Mr. A.R. Sambre Advocate for Res. no.1. … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 17.12.2011. In support of review petition, Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the review- petitioner, made following submissions - (i) the points narrated in the writ petition though were not canvassed at the time of hearing on the date of passing of the order under review dated 26.9.2007, go to the root of the matter and constitute error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) The trial Court did not give an opportunity of leading evidence to the review petitioner, particularly when the plaintiff himself wanted to produce additional evidence and having completed his evidence, there was a duty cast on the trial Court to fix the case 1712mca1061.11.odt 2/4 for evidence but had fixed the case for arguments, and that is an error which has occurred. (iii) There are documents showing that the suit property is in fact allotted to the review petitioner by the Government from time to time; and that being so, the plaintiff lacks the title in the suit land and the decree itself could not have been passed. Mr.Deshpande took me through the documents issued by the Government. (iv) There is no proof on record to show that the Secretary of the Club was authorized to file the suit, and in fact xerox copy was placed on record without proving the same in accordance with law. Even then the trial court has relied on the said xerox copy of the proceedings by considering the same as original in its judgment, which is the wrong procedure. (v) the trial court ought to have granted adjournment rather than depriving the defendant from putting up his case. These being the errors on the face of the record, they need to be corrected by entertaining the present application. Per contra, Mr.Sambre, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the review application and argued, inviting my attention to the order under review, that nothing was argued when the writ petition was decided as is now being sought to be argued. According to him, the scope of review cannot be enlarged to 1712mca1061.11.odt 3/4 hearing the writ petition again. Inviting my attention to the order-sheets of the trial court, he pointed out the conduct of the review-petitioner in prolonging the proceedings of the trial court. Finally, he prayed for dismissal of review application. I have gone through the order dated 26.9.2007 under review. It is recorded in para 3 of the order under review that the review petitioner did not at all enter the witness box to prove any of his defence. Perusal of the order-sheet of the the court below also shows that the suit was pending since the year 2002 and on number of occasions the case was posted for evidence of defendant/review petitioner. Not only that, even cost was imposed on three occasions indicating warning from the court not to obtain adjournment for evidence. Further, the plaintiff applied for producing additional evidence by filing xerox copy of the proceedings to file suit. That apart, even then the review petitioner applied for some time when the case was closed for arguments. The review-applicant did not apply for permission to lead evidence and, on the contrary, finally argued the case on 18.2.2005. To say now that the defendant was not granted opportunity of leading evidence, it is too late and the conduct of the defendant does not show that he had at all been serious in putting his defence. The case was closed for judgment. All these points were not raised while arguing the 1712mca1061.11.odt 4/4 petition before this Court. The submission that the trial court ought to have granted adjournment for leading evidence cannot be accepted as granting adjournment is discretion of the court and looking to the conduct of the defendant when costs were imposed upon him thrice, I do not think that the trial Court committed mistake in not granting adjournment. The submission is therefore rejected. The submission that the dispute relates to land and therefore adjournment ought to have been granted cannot be accepted at such a late stage because the defendant did not enter the witness-box nor he filed any document which is now sought to be filed for the first time in this review application and perhaps in the writ petition also. The documents ought to have been filed in the trial court or before the lower appellate court. Filing of documents at such a late stage is bound to pre-judicially affect the other side. These documents also cannot be considered in the present review petition. I do not think that there is any error on the face of the record, as contended by Mr.Deshpande. Consequently, I am not inclined to entertain the present review application. Hence, MCA No. 1061/11 is dismissed. Judge /TA/