IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 11 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2006 SHRI SURYAKANT VASSU GURAV, SATTARI GOA. ... Applicant Versus SHRI DATTARAM NARAYAN MADWAL ALIAS VELUSKAR, SATTARI. ... Respondent Mr. D. P. Bhise, for the Applicant. Coram:- S.A.BOBDE, J. Date:- 26th April, 2007 P.C.: Heard. There is no merit in the application for review. The applicant contends that he could not have been treated as a trespasser, in view of the fact that he was a tenant. This issue was raised in the pleadings, but obviously has not been accepted. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant omitted to file Form I and XIV which would show that the applicant was a tenant and therefore could not have been treated as a trespasser. This does not constitute a mistake or error in the Judgment, which requires review. The review application is rejected. S.A.BOBDE, J. sl.