1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATON NO.2569 OF 2009 In Review Application St.No.3388 of 2009 In W.P.No. 3371/1990 with C.A.No.11672/2009 In CA No. 2569/2009 In Review Application St No.3388/2009 In W.P.No.3371/1990. Hitimbhai Mulla Kadarbhai since deceased by L.Rs. 1a. Rubabai W/o Hatimbhai and others ... Applicants. Versus Bhagwan S/o Tukadu Bagul and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for the applicants. Mr.B.R.Warma, advocate for the Respondent No.1. Smt.V.A.More, A.G.P. for the State. ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11672 OF 2009 In C.A.No.2569 of 2009 In W.P.No.3371 of 1990. 2 Kacharu S/o Ziparu Birhade and others ... Applicants. Versus Bhagwan S/o Tukadu Bagul and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.M.Deshmukh, advocate for the applicants. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent Nos.1,3 and 9. Smt.V.A.More, A.G.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.11.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. These are Review Applications and application for addition as parties to the Review Application to the original Writ Petition No.3371/1990 which came to be decided by this Court on 19.12.2008. 3. So far as third parties who have filed C.A.No.11672/2009 are concerned, it may be stated that they were not the parties to the Writ Petition. They have already filed a separate 3 suit which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Amalner. Since they were not the parties to the writ Writ Petition, at the stage of Review Application filed by original Respondents of the Writ Petition No.3371/1990, they can not be permitted to push ahead their so- called claim which they have already agitated by separate suit. It is made clear, however, that the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No. 3371/1990 may not be binding on them and the merits of their suit will not at all be affected thereby. Hence, the application for intervention and impleadment is dismissed. 4. As regards Review Application, the chief bone of contention is that the Writ Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 2504/1989, whereby judgment rendered in RCA No. 289/1982 was challenged but that Writ Petition was withdrawn and as such he was precluded from challenging title of the Review Petitioners. Another limb of contention is that observations of this Court regarding mutation entries relied upon by the original Writ Petitioners are 4 incorrect. It is also submitted that the name of the petitioner was recorded without any notice to Kekabhai and, therefore, the mutation entry could not be relied upon by the Writ Petitioner. It is contended that no hearing was given to the Review Petitioners and, therefore, the said mutation entry was not binding on them. It is further contended that the observations regarding giving of new symbolic possession to the Review Petitioners is incorrect. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties to the Review Petition, it may be gathered that much emphasis was laid on the inaccuracy and authenticity of the extract (Exh.A) filed along with Writ Petition. It was alleged that the same was fabricated. However, inquiry made by learned Registrar (Judicial) as per order of this Court would show that the original record was examined and the extract (Exh.A) tallied with the Municipal record. The learned Registrar (Judicial) also recorded deposition of one Sudam Jagtap. While deciding Review Application, the scope can not be enlarged 5 so as to undertake fullfledged inquiry as if such application is a suit. It may be observed, therefore, that the extract (Exh.A) relied upon by the petitioner can not be regarded as a fabricated document. 6. True, the Writ Petitioner had filed previous Writ Petition No.2504/1989 challenging the judgment of the first appellate Court rendered in appeal bearing RCA No.289/1982. It is true that on 7.7.1989 that Writ Petition was withdrawn. The Writ Petitioner was not party to the suit or the appeal. Obviously, he was not bound by the judgment rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. It is well settled that Writ Petition is not continuation of the suit and, therefore, the W.P.No.2504/1989 could not be regarded as Second Appeal. The withdrawal of said Writ Petition would not amount to acceptance of the findings which were rendered in the suit and the appeal in which the Writ Petitioner was not a party as such. In other words, such withdrawal would neither amount to estoppel nor it may be used as constructive 6 resjudicata. Consequently, the second plank put forth is also unavailable for the purpose of present Review Application. 7. Though, it is submitted that there are certain improper observations made in the judgment under Review, yet, if at all any incorrect finding is rendered, yet, the same Court can not consider inaccuracy likewise an appellate Court. It is well settled that Review jurisdiction can not be used to usurp the powers of the appellate Court. Considering these reasons, the Review Application is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Ca256909