IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 7 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 20 OF 2008 SHRI. ULHAS GUNO GAONKAR AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus M/S. CHOWGULE AND COMPANY LTD ... Respondent Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. P. Kir, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 17th January, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Lotlikar, Sr. Counsel for the Respondent. The only grievance made by the petitioner in the Revision Application is that the learned Judge in order dated 7.8.2008 at para 3, instead of mentioning Cadastral Survey No. 7 has mentioned Survey No. 7. According to Mr. Godinho the mention of Survey No. 7 in the order sought to be reviewed may cause prejudice in the course of trial. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Lotlikar disputed that wrongly it has been mentioned as Survey No. 7. According to Mr. Lotlikar, the review sought for is not justified. According to Mr. Lotlikar, there is no distinction between Cadastral Survey and Survey. In my opinion, no case has been made out to review the order. The learned Trial Judge shall deal with the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. MF/-