1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1296/2009 IN SECOND APPEAL No. 470/2008 ( Shakil Khan Habib Khan Pathan -: versus :- Ramvatibai Ramdas Shriwas ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date of reserving the Order - 18.01.2010. Date of pronouncement - 28.01.2010. --- The plaintiff who had filed Second Appeal, is seeking review of the order dated 17.03.2009 passed by me dismissing his appeal. Suit for specific performance filed by him was decreed by the Trial Court and said decree came to be reversed by the lower Appellate Court. After hearing Shri Mohd. Faiyaz Khan with Shri R. Joseph, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Charlewar with Shri Dixit, learned counsel for respondent/ original defendant, I dismissed the Second Appeal. Thereafter, plaintiff filed present Misc. Civil Application and delay therein has been condoned on 09.10.2009, by me. Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for applicant / plaintiff has invited attention to substantial questions of law 2 as framed in the review application to argue that all those questions could not be raised or pressed into service on 17.03.2009. He states that the Trial Court has found the agreement for sale at Exh.41, dated 06.02.1989 to be duly proved and Lower Appellate Court has reversed that finding. He has taken me through the relevant observations by the lower Appellate Court to urge that, those findings are perverse and perversity of said findings itself constituted a substantial question of law. He points out that the non- applicant / defendant Ramavatibai was poor and on the date of agreement, earnest money/amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to her and that amount was immediately deposited by her in her saving bank account in post and she was earning interest @ Rs. 70/- per month. He argues that all these facts and relevant material on record has not been pointed out to this court. He has also invited attention to other questions sought to be urged to point out necessity of review in the matter. Shri A. Dixit, learned counsel for non-applicant / original defendant has contended that this review application has been filed only with a view to harass the defendant who is old, illiterate and innocent lady. He contends that, the review is sought on facts and in Second Appeal such an attempt is not permissible. He has contended that Second Appeal was decided on 17.03.2009 on the questions raised after giving time to the then counsel to point out even the admission of Ramavatibai. He states that question not raised at that juncture cannot now be allowed to be raised and entertained by this Court. 3 The Second Appeal was heard by me on 17.03.2009 and on the request of Shri Khan, he was given time to point out admission that, defendant had received amount of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest from plaintiff. The admission could not be pointed out. This Court has then considered the findings on Exh.41 and recorded that those findings of Lower Appellate Court in paragraph nos. 11,12 and 13 of its judgment could not be demonstrated as perverse at all. The findings of Lower Appellate Court that market rate prevailing in 1989 was much more than one recorded in the agreement for sale, was also not challenged. In view of this satisfaction reached on 17.03.2009 the Second Appeal was rejected in motion hearing. It is therefore, apparent that the plaintiff is attempt to have fresh consideration of his grievance through another Advocate. Evidence of Ramavatibai show that suggestion of receipt of Rs. 10,000/- or its deposit in post office is denied by her. She has stated that she never agreed to sale the property to plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court has considered the evidence on record and has reversed the findings of the Trial Court on Exh.41. The said exercise is neither perverse nor erroneous. No case is made out warranting any interference in review jurisdiction. Misc. Civil Application is therefore rejected, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.