1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVISION PETITION NO.3 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.738 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2009 Vishwas Gulabrao Jadhav .... Applicant Vs. Vishwas Bapusaheb Jadhav .... Respondents Mr. A.V. Anturkar i/by Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Vishwanath Talkute, Advocate for respondent no.2-A. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 2nd July, 2010 P.C. : 1. This Review Petition is filed by the applicant in respect of the order dated 25th November 2009 passed in Civil Application No. 738 of 2009 rejecting the same. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has concern over the following observation at paragraph 2 of the order. It is thus seen that during the entire period of the “ pendency of the proceedings, there had been no 2 injunction running in favour of the appellant for protection of his alleged possession of the suit property.“ He submits that after the trial court had partly allowed the suit granting injunction against respondents from disturbing the possession of the appellant over the suit property. When the appeal was preferred by both the sides, there was no interim order obtained in the appeal proceedings for stay of operation of the decree of injunction. In that circumstance, according to him, the above observation in the order becomes factually incorrect. At the same time, he has fairly conceded that the fact that there was no interim stay operating in the appeal proceedings was not brought to the notice of the court by the either side, at the time of hearing of the Civil Application. It is well settled that an application for review of the order is not maintenable on the ground that at the time of passing of the order either some argument was not advanced or some factual position brought to the notice of the court. Therefore, the review application is not maintenable and the same is hereby dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)