( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2232 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1738 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 2541 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 188 OF 1996 Smt. Sumanbai Uttam Kumbhar APPLICANT VERSUS Murlidhar Tryambak Wani & another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr. M.G. Deokate, advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.P. Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr. N.L. Choudhari, advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The review application is filed on the ground that while construing the terms of the agreement of sale dated 25th April, 1978, there is error committed by the Court while reaching conclusion that the amount could be paid any time after four (4) years though it was actually payable only ( 2 ) within four (4) years from the date of execution of the sale- deed. 3. Assuming for a moment that the construction of document was improperly made, it cannot be regarded as basis for entertaining the review application. It is well settled that powers of the appellate Court cannot be usurped by the Court while considering review application. Learned counsel referred to certain observations in “Gauri Shankar Prasad & others v. Brahma Nand Singh” 2008 (5) ALL MR 911 and also urged that the mistake can be cured by this Court itself with a view to meet ends of justice. In my opinion, the review application is outside the pale of Order-XLVII Rule-1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Consequently, present application, the application for condonation of delay and the review application stand dismissed. No costs. 4. In the interest of justice, however, the parties are directed to maintain status quo for six (6) weeks henceforth. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/ca2232-10