[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 23 OF 2005. REVIEW PETITION NO. 23 OF 2005. REVIEW PETITION NO. 23 OF 2005. IN IN IN SECOND APEAL NO. 902 OF 2004. SECOND APEAL NO. 902 OF 2004. SECOND APEAL NO. 902 OF 2004. Vithoba Ramji Pansare ..Petitioner. V/s Sitaram Hari Bhor & Ors. .Respondents. Mr. M.M. Sathaye for the petitioner. Mr. Kishor Patil h/f Mr. P.N. Joshi for the respodnents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER, 2006. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER, 2006. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER, 2006. P.C. . Heard Mr. Sathaye and Mr. Kishor Patil, the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By the order dated 4th August, 2005, I had dismissed the Second Appeal No. 902/2004 on the ground that there are concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below and there is no substantial questions of law involved. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, who is the original appellant, points out that the Judgment of [2] the first Appellate Court deals with only a part of the property which was purchased from one Ranganath Hari Bhor but does not speak anything about the property which he had purchased from one Kisan Namdeo Bhor. In view of this, the learned Counsel for the respondent was given an ample opportunity to produce the copies of the sale deed executed by said Kisan and Rangnath prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the appellant. Mr. Kishor Patil, the learned Counsel makes a statement, that in spite of his sincere efforts he could not get proper response from the respondent. In view of the above circumstances, the order dated 4th August, 2005 is hereby recalled. The said appeal be listed for admission before the appropriate Court. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)