1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1120/2009 IN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.62/2004 (D) Union of India, Through General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad ...Versus... Ashok son of Sakharam Dhule, aged about 35 years, Occupation – Business, resident of near Mahadeo Mandir, Purna (Railway Station), District : Parbhani. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri M.W. Harsulkar, Adv. for applicant] [Shri Lambat, Adv. for respondent] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 12.11.2009 1. Learned Counsel for review applicant placed reliance on the certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Nanded to show that there was amputation of five inches below the knee and therefore, review applicant was entitled to compensation as was awarded by the Tribunal and this Court ought not to have modified the said part of the compensation by reducing it from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/-. 2. Learned Counsel for respondent pointed out to me that there was certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Parbhani before the Tribunal which shows amputation of leg and therefore, this Court should not now consider such document on record in review jurisdiction. 2 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties, I find that the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Parbhani was on the record of the Tribunal, showing amputation of leg and that is why this Court held that entry No.24 was attracted. It is not possible to allow the review applicant to introduce a new document in this review application in the form of certificate from Civil Surgeon, Nanded as the same would be wholly impermissible in law. I do not find any fault in the impugned order under review since reliance has been placed on the document that was filed by review applicant himself before the Tribunal. 4. In the result, I find no merit in the present review application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw