1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.871 OF 2009 Hussainkhan Nasibkhan and others. ..Applicants V/s City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., ..Respondent ......... Mr.R.F. Totala, Advocate for applicants. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 9th June, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This is an application for review preferred by the applicants under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. 3. The counsel for applicants submits that the grounds shown in the Petition, particularly grounds No.8 to 10 could be considered as substantial questions of law. It would notice that the said grounds relate to appreciation of evidence. The land was measured by the Court Commissioner on two occasions, first, it 2 was measured by Court Commissioner by name Raghunath and after remand of the matter, it was measured by PW Rao. The counsel for applicants submits further that there is error while showing name of the measurer as PW Raghunath, as it appears in paragraph no.5 of the Judgment, which is sought to be reviewed and wrongly the version of PW Raghunath is appreciated. He submits that in view of the case of "Vijay Shrawan Shende & ors V/s State of Maharashtra & ors" {2009(5) Bom. C.R. 306}, which is a judgment in Second Appeal No.97/2009, the Second appeal involves substantial questions of law. It may be mentioned that the judgment in Second Appeal No.97/2009 is considered by this Court in paragraph no.7 of the Judgment, which is sought to be reviewed. This Court observed that there is no ratio laid down to the effect that dismissal of suit merely because of the absence of local enquiry can not be sustained. Mr.Totala also relied upon the Judgment in the case of "Board of Control for Cricket, India and another V/s Netaji Cricket Club and others" (AIR 2005 S.C. 592) in support of contention that review is permissible when there is mistake of Advocate. In the present case whatever is mistake it is only naming the surveyor and nothing more. 4. It appears, no doubt, that name of PW Raghunath is mentioned in Judgment under review but if same is considered 3 along with the Judgment of the First Appellate court, it is manifest that instead of mentioning name as PW Rao, the name of PW Raghunath is shown in the judgment under review because the counsel referred him as PW Raghunath. This small error does not vitiate the purport and core of the reasons recorded by this Court. The Second Appeal is dismissed for want of substantial questions of law and the same position remains as it is. Hence, Review Petition is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/ra28.10